UNIANOVA DV BY IV MOD

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/INTERCEPT=INCLUDE
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
/DESIGN=IV MOD IV*MOD.

Univariate Analysis of Variance

Notes
Output Created

21-May-2014 17:40:51

Comments
Input

Data

C:\Users\PUBLIC~1.
CSS\AppData\Local\Temp\Factorial
ANOVA Example-1.sav

Active Dataset

DataSet1

Filter

<none>

Weight

<none>

Split File

<none>

N of Rows in Working
Data File
Missing Value Handling

80

Definition of Missing

User-defined missing values are

treated as missing.

Cases Used

Statistics are based on all cases with

valid data for all variables in the
model.

Syntax

UNIANOVA DV BY IV MOD
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/INTERCEPT=INCLUDE
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
/DESIGN=IV MOD IV*MOD.

Resources

Processor Time

00 00:00:00.015

Elapsed Time

00 00:00:00.016

[DataSet1] C:\Users\PUBLIC~1.CSS\AppData\Local\Temp\Factorial ANOVA Example-1.

sav
Between-Subjects
Factors
N
IV

MOD

1.00

40

2.00

40

1.00

40

2.00

40

Page 1

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable:DV
IV

MOD

Mean

1.00

1.00

5.0500

.99868

20

2.00

1.4500

.60481

20

Total

3.2500

1.99679

40

1.00

8.6000

.99472

20

2.00

6.5500

.94451

20

Total

7.5750

1.41217

40

1.00

6.8250

2.04923

40

2.00

4.0000

2.69853

40

Total

5.4125

2.77281

80

2.00

Total

Std. Deviation

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable:DV
Source

Type III Sum

of Squares

Corrected Model

545.737

Intercept

df

Mean Square

Sig.

181.912

224.255

.000

2343.613

2343.613

2889.125

.000

IV

374.113

374.113

461.193

.000

MOD

159.613

159.613

196.765

.000

IV * MOD

12.013

12.013

14.809

.000

Error

61.650

76

.811

Total

2951.000

80

607.387

79

Corrected Total

a. R Squared = .898 (Adjusted R Squared = .894)

GRAPH
/LINE(MULTIPLE)=MEAN(DV) BY IV BY MOD.

Graph

Page 2

Notes
Output Created

21-May-2014 17:41:10

Comments
Input

Data

C:\Users\PUBLIC~1.
CSS\AppData\Local\Temp\Factorial
ANOVA Example-1.sav

Active Dataset

DataSet1

Filter

<none>

Weight

<none>

Split File

<none>

N of Rows in Working
Data File
Syntax

Resources

80
GRAPH
/LINE(MULTIPLE)=MEAN(DV) BY
IV BY MOD.

Processor Time

00 00:00:00.327

Elapsed Time

00 00:00:00.297

[DataSet1] C:\Users\PUBLIC~1.CSS\AppData\Local\Temp\Factorial ANOVA Example-1.

sav

Page 3

MOD

10.00

1.00
2.00

8.00

Mean DV

6.00

4.00

2.00

.00
1.00

2.00

IV

SAVE OUTFILE='C:\Users\PUBLIC~1.CSS\AppData\Local\Temp\Factorial ANOVA Example-1.sav'

/COMPRESSED.
SAVE TRANSLATE OUTFILE='C:\Users\public.CSSCR\AppData\Local\Temp\Factorial ANOVA AraldiCM.xls'
/TYPE=XLS
/VERSION=2
/MAP
/REPLACE
/FIELDNAMES.
Data written to C:\Users\public.CSSCR\AppData\Local\Temp\Factorial ANOVA AraldiCM.xls.
3 variables and 80 cases written to range: SPSS.
Variable: IV
Type: Number
Width:
8
Dec: 2
Variable: MOD
Type: Number
Width:
8
Dec: 2
Variable: DV
Type: Number
Width:
8
Dec: 2

Page 4

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

The Effects of The Project Approach to Early Literacy Curriculum on Literacy Outcomes
Upon Entering Kindergarten
Caitlin M. Araldi
University of Washington

Author Note

Caitlin M. Araldi, Department of Educational Psychology, University of

Washington.
This research was supported in part by grants from the Washington State
Department of Education.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Caitlin M. Araldi,
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98106.
Email: [email protected]

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

Abstract
The following study examines the effects of implementing the Project Approach
to curriculum in early childhood on literacy outcomes upon entering Kindergarten the

J 5/27/2014 11:08 AM
Comment [1]: Good job! Ideally, this
would be shorter, but not to worry. Credit
received for this portion of the assignment.

next school year. Preschool students (mean age 4.18) were given a 10 item phonological
component of the PALS assessment as a pre-test of phonemic awareness, and then
measured again by outcomes on the same PALS 10-item post-test assessment upon
entering Kindergarten (mean age 5.23). The results attempt to address current concerns in
education regarding how school-readiness curriculum should, and if it should, be
emphasized in early childhood curriculum; particularly for literacy development in an
educational climate of increasingly diverse linguistic backgrounds.
The participants of the control group, who did not partake in the Project Approach
to curriculum, and of the treatment group, who did participate in the Project Approach to
curriculum, were sampled from a population of four play-based early learning centers of
mixed socioeconomic status in a large city in the Pacific Northwest. From each center, 10
preschoolers of mixed gender and race/ethnicity were randomly assigned to treatment and
control groups, totaling 20 participants per center and 80 participants total. Based upon a
parent self-report, the students were placed into two subgroups, one in which English is
their first language, and the other in which a language other than English was their first
language before entering preschool.
The outcomes were then analyzed using a 2X2 factorial ANOVA, with results
indicating a strong correlation between participation in the Project Approach in preschool
and an increase in test scores on assessments that measured phonological awareness in

J 5/27/2014 11:06 AM
Comment [2]: Actually, you dont get a
correlation from doing an ANOVA. You can
say that there was a main effect of curriculum
type indicating that students in the project
approach had higher test scores than students
in the non-project approach. Was this effect
even stronger for one of your two subgroups?

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

Kindergarten, for both native English language learners and English as a second language
learners.

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

The Effects of The Project Approach to Early Literacy Curriculum on Literacy Outcomes
Upon Entering Kindergarten

As Washington State proceeds with participating in the implementation of

classrooms across the nation. The National Association for the Education of Young

J 5/27/2014 11:45 AM
Comment [3]: Intro 6/10
Good start! The literature review addresses all
of your variables, but the connections are
tenuous and there is a lack of evidence to
support your points. Although youve quoted
many sources, you need to move toward
making the argument in your own words and
describing the empirical evidence that supports
your claims. I suggest creating subheadings for
each of your variables and discussing the
literature that pertains to each one separately.
Also, your hypotheses need to be framed in
terms of the results you might actually obtain
given that youre doing a 2x2
ANOVA.

Children addresses these concerns in their position statement Responding to Linguistic

J 5/27/2014 11:09 AM
Comment [4]: ???

Common Core measures (Implementing the Common Core State Standards for English
Language Arts and Mathematics in Washington State, Purpose), which include state-wide
standards for students to meet as early as Kindergarten, the question of how to prepare
young children to enter school remains an increasingly important issue that is further
complicated by the needs of a rising amount of diversity in early learning centers and

and Cultural Diversity: Recommendations for Effective Early Childhood Education

J 5/27/2014 11:11 AM
Comment [5]: This sentence is very long
and contains a several ideas.

(1995) by stating that in order for young children to develop and learn optimally, the
early childhood professional must be prepared to meet their diverse developmental,
cultural, linguistic, and educational needs.
Previous research studies have indicated that many factors can put young students
at risk for later failure in reading-related academic achievement, but for the purpose of
this study, English language proficiency has been exclusively chosen to moderate the
potential impact of the inclusive, differentiated Project Approach to curriculum, and was
controlled for by asking parents to self-report whether or not English was the first
language acquired at home. Measurement included a pre- and post-test of the
phonological awareness component of the PALS assessment and sought to determine the

J 5/27/2014 11:11 AM
Comment [6]: So, how does your study
contribute to this effort?

J 5/27/2014 11:13 AM
Comment [7]: Start by saying what your
study does. You can justify why you choose
this moderator and the limitations of this
choice later (in the literature review on your
moderator and the discussion section,
respectively).
J 5/27/2014 11:14 AM
Comment [8]: It wasnt controlled for by
asking for parent self-report, it was assessed by
asking for parent self-report.

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

effectiveness of project work in producing literacy outcomes indicating preparedness for

reading development in school.
A review of existing research on literacy outcomes in early childhood indicates
that an effective approach to curriculum must meet the needs of the individual child, and
within a linguistically diverse context, the importance of this is even more crucial due to
the wide variation of proficiencies within any given population of non-native speakers.
Young learners of diverse linguistic backgrounds face unique challenges in learning, and
yet educators are implored to uphold that the acquisition of language is essential to
childrens cognitive and social development (NAEYC, 1995) in their instruction. The
term school-readiness is therefore one with more than one possible interpretation
according to current early childhood educational standards, and it has been demonstrated
to have different implications for those students whose first language is not English or for
whom certain unique educational needs present a challenge to learning.
Although many educators are searching for evidence-based curricula in
response to the No Child Left Behind legislation and the national standards movement

J 5/27/2014 11:27 AM
Comment [9]: This paragraph provides a
some information on the tension surrounding
school readiness, literacy, and dual language
learning. So it kind of addresses your
moderator, but it could be clearer.

(Beneke & Ostrosky, 2009, Introduction), there is little evidence to support the use of any
one specific approach to early childhood curriculum. Even so, a report from the National
Assessment of Educational Progress states that two thirds of fourth grade students across
the United States do not read at grade level, and according to Cummings et al. (2010),
This is a grave social concern because low reading skills have long been related to
delinquency, school drop-out rates, and unemployment (p. 94).

J 5/27/2014 11:26 AM
Comment [10]: OK, this paragraph says
that illiteracy is a problemwhich provides
some justification for your DV.

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

Consequently, in order for young learners to experience success in academic,

social, and economic outcomes, it is imperative that they make adequate progress in
learning to read at an early age. Children who begin their educational careers as
struggling readers experience significant difficulty catching up to their peers (Cummings
et al., 2010, p. 94). Ultimately, The diversity of languages represented in our programs
means that all early childhood educators will need strategies that have been proven
effective for children in the early stages of learning English (Espinosa, 2010, p. 12).
Reconciling the needs of the individual learner with national academic standards
requires that educators consider the importance of quality in early childhood curriculum,
regardless of linguistic challenges. Chien et al. (2010) assert that Higher quality
prekindergarten programs are associated with more positive child outcomes. The
literature on child-care environmental quality is primarily based on both constructivist
theory, in which the adults role is to provide children with rich materials that promote
child-initiated exploration, and sociocultural theory, in which the adults role is to
provide frequent sensitive and responsive interactions with children (p. 1534).
In addition to the imperative need for a focus on classroom relationships that
nurture the individual learner, studies have shown that phonological awareness in
particular is one of the largest indicators of future success in literacy outcomes that foster
early reading. In order to ensure exposure to the appropriate contexts in which
phonological awareness can be developed, educators must emphasize meaningful
communication and interactions that promote oral language.
As a result of the literature reviewed, this study chose to implement the Project
Approach because it emphasizes building curriculum around the interests of any unique

J 5/27/2014 11:28 AM
Comment [11]: This kind of addresses your
DV and moderator, but again, it could be
clearer.
Part of the problem is that youre relying on
quotes to make your argument for you. Instead
of letting other people make your argument,
put the argument into your own words and cite
your sources. Also, discuss the evidence used
to support these statements. By evidence, I
mean the data gathered via empirical research.

J 5/27/2014 11:21 AM
Comment [12]: Is this from an empirical
research study? Rather than quoting the
authors summary of the results, you need to
move toward critiquing the study itself. This
means presenting the findings, discussing the
short-comings, and saying how your study
addresses those short-comings.
J 5/27/2014 11:30 AM
Comment [13]: So, how does this support
the use of a project based approach. Since I
teach early childhood development, I can kind
of see the argument youre making here, but it
is still very tenuous. You need to provide some
sort of evidence, based in empirical research,
that the project approach to literacy will work
better than your control.
J 5/27/2014 11:22 AM
Comment [14]: Which studies? Cite and
describe one.
J 5/27/2014 11:31 AM
Comment [15]: This paragraph is sort of
about the importance of literacy and I think
about the importance of the project approach,
but Im not quite sure.

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

group of learners, enabling differentiation and inclusionary practices without

compromising high quality instruction or neglecting the need to address the role of
standardization in later academic assessment.
In order to address its effectiveness in full, it must be noted that the Project
Approach is an approach to curriculum, rather than a curriculum with specific content
objectives, and it is thus difficult to compare it to other early childhood curricula. Rather,
the objectives emphasized will vary significantly from project to project, even within a
classroom. As a result, the very responsiveness and elasticity that are highlighted as the
strengths of the Project Approach are likely to increase the challenge of comparing uses
of the approach across classrooms. This challenge may account, in part, for the lack of
research on its implementation and effectiveness (Beneke & Ostrosky, 2010, The
Project Approach).

Hypotheses
The literature suggests that a strong correlation will exist between implementing
an inclusive, emergent approach to curriculum (the Project Approach) and an increased
phonological awareness (as measured by the PALS Beginning Sounds 10-item pre- and
post-test assessment). It is also likely that students who learned a first language other than
English will achieve an increased phonological awareness of English, perhaps even
comparable to that of their native-English speaking peers.

Methods, 3-5 pages, 10 points

Participants

J 5/27/2014 11:25 AM
Comment [16]: So, here youre saying that
it is very hard to study the project approach.
Does this mean that no one has studied it?
What evidence suggests that this approach will
work well, other than folks saying that Are
there curricula that use specific projects that
have been studied? How does your study
address these concerns?
J 5/27/2014 11:36 AM
Comment [17]: You arent doing a
correlational study. Try to frame your
hypotheses in terms of the results that you
might actually obtainmain effect of your IV,
main effect of your moderator, and an
interaction.
J 5/27/2014 11:36 AM
Comment [18]: Is your DV really
difference scores between pre and post test?
J 5/27/2014 12:02 PM
Comment [19]: Methods 4/10
This is a start! You should go through the
checklist and answer each question under the
subheadings provided (Participants, Measures,
Program (or something like that), and
Procedures. Make sure you say how you are
operationalizing your DV, MOD, and IV. For
your DV, I need to know how are you
calculating your DV. Are you really using
difference scores, or is your DV the post-test
scores? For your moderator, I get that you are
doing parent self-report of languages spoken at
home, but how are you thinking through
distinctions such as being raised fluent in both
English and another language, vs. not speaking
English at all? For your IV, youll need to lay
out what your treatment and control groups do.
How are these groups different from one
another? Be specific. Youre making it up, so
you have total control over this! Finally, for
your procedures, I need a step by step
explanation of what you are doing in your
study.

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

The participants of the control group, who did not partake in the Project Approach
to curriculum, and of the treatment group, who did participate in the Project Approach to
curriculum, were sampled from a population of four play-based early learning centers of
mixed socioeconomic status in a large city in the Pacific Northwest. From each center, 10
preschoolers of mixed gender and race/ethnicity were randomly assigned to treatment and
control groups, totaling 20 participants per center and 80 participants total. Based upon a
parent self-report, the students were placed into two subgroups, one in which English is
their first language, and the other in which a language other than English was their first
language before entering preschool.

Measures
As outlined by Townsend & Konold (2009), the PALS-PreK assessment is
administered one-on-one by teachers to preschool children, and takes approximately 20 to
25 minutes to complete in total. It includes eight subtests: Name Writing, Upper-Case
Alphabet Knowledge, Lower-Case Alphabet Knowledge, Letter Sounds, Beginning
Sound Awareness, Print and Word Awareness, Rhyme Awareness, and Nursery Rhyme
Awareness, but this study chose to use only one component of the test, Beginning Sound
Awareness, as an appropriate assessment of the participatory population. The Beginning
Sounds portion consists of 10 items, and requires children to orally demonstrate the
beginning sounds of words that are presented aloud by the assessment administrator
(Townsend & Konold, 2009).
The term phonological processing refers to skills in using the phonological, or
sound, structure when learning how to decode written language. PA [phonological

J 5/27/2014 11:39 AM
Comment [20]: I dont think you can
randomly assign individual children to the
treatment and control groups, considering that
the IV is a project based approach to literacy at
the classroom level. Do you mean that you had
4 centers, each with two classes, and that the
classes were randomly assigned to use a
project approach or not?
J 5/27/2014 11:43 AM
Comment [21]: Good startnext work on
supplying more details that are in the checklist.
What are the actual (made up) demographics
for your study (how many boys vs. girls, race,
SES, languages spoken at home) for each of
your four groups. Given that you cant
randomly assign at the individual level, youve
got a quasi-experimental design. So providing
information about how your groups were
essentially the same on all the demographic
stuff will help address concerns about
participant bias.

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

awareness] is a subset of this type of processing, wherein individuals are able to identify,
discriminate between, and/or produce the smallest unit of sound in words (Cummings et
al., 2010).
The purpose of the Project Approach is primarily to engage children in the
research of topics that are of worthwhile and of potential interest to them (Beneke &
Ostrosky, 2009, Introduction, The Project Approach) through the investigative process.
This multidimensional approach requires them not only to be in control of their own
learning, but to pursue new knowledge in a way that is meaningful, sensitive to their
individual needs, and that requires them to engage in understanding language through
interaction.
According to Beneke & Ostrosky (2009), Teachers typically learn how to
implement the Project Approach as part of their teacher education programs, through
inservice training, or by accessing video or reading materials (Introduction, The Project
Approach), making it a relatively accessible option for educators to use, even in
conjunction with other curricula material.
The Project Approach relies on forms of documentation to assess progress in
learning, and due to the focus of documentation practices on detailing individual
performance of classroom-based tasks, they have been shown to enhance student
motivation, assist teachers in instructional decision making, and serve as an effective
means for reporting progress to families, educators and the community (Helm et al.,
2007, p. 2). The benefits of documentation extend to both teacher and student, because a
documentation system, not only provides a framework from which childrens work can
be systematically collected and processed (Helm et al., p. 2), but also is an opportunity

J 5/27/2014 11:44 AM
Comment [22]: This information seems
more relevant to the introductory information
on your DV than it does to your measure.
J 5/27/2014 11:55 AM
Comment [23]: This information should be
separate from your measures. It should be in a
section called Intervention or Program, or
Project Approach or something like that. Also,
it needs to be a lot more specific about what
actually happened in your study. The general
information can go up in the literature review.

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

10

for teacher training on how to observe, collect, and analyze classroom behavior in an
unbiased way. Documentation is a way for teachers to make it possible for others to see
learning happening (Helm et al., 2007, p. 8). In order to do so in a meaningful and
developmentally-appropriate way, teaching is not only a matter of providing
opportunities to acquire knowledge and skills, but also of developing positive attitudes
toward learning and using those skills, as these dispositions cultivated early on in
children have a lasting impact on future development. (Helm et al., 2007, p. 7).

https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PSDIV98.PDF
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/v11n1/ostrosky.html

J 5/27/2014 11:57 AM
Comment [24]: You need a procedures
section.

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

The Effects of Supplementing Play-Based Curriculum with The Project Approach on

Phonological Awareness in Preschool
Caitlin M. Araldi
University of Washington

Author Note

Caitlin M. Araldi, Department of Educational Psychology, University of

Washington.
This research was supported in part by grants from the Washington State
Department of Education.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Caitlin M. Araldi,
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98106.
Email: [email protected]

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

Abstract
The following study examines the effects of implementing the Project Approach
to curriculum in early childhood in the last year of preschool on literacy outcomes in
anticipation of entering Kindergarten the next school year. Preschool students (mean age
4.18) were given a 10 item phonological component of the PALS assessment as a pre-test
on Beginning Sound Awareness at the beginning of the school year, and then measured
again by outcomes on the same PALS 10-item post-test assessment at the end of the
school year before entering Kindergarten (mean age 5.23). The review of literature
indicates that the effectiveness of emergent curriculum in early childhood is difficult to
measure, and little to no previous research exists on its impact on phonological awareness
development in populations of diverse linguistic backgrounds.
The participants of the control group, who did not partake in the Project Approach
to curriculum, and of the treatment group, who did participate in the Project Approach to
curriculum, were sampled from a population of four play-based early learning centers of
mixed socioeconomic status in a large city in the Pacific Northwest. Preschoolers of
mixed gender and race/ethnicity were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups
(one treatment and one control group for each center), totaling 20 participants per center
and 80 participants total. Based upon a parent self-report, the students were identified as
English fluent (non-ELL) or of ELL status, in which the children were not fluent in
English before entering the school year.
The outcomes were then analyzed using a 2X2 factorial ANOVA, with results
indicating a strong main effect of curriculum approach type upon the phonological
awareness of students. Those who participated in supplementing their play-based

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

curriculum with the Project Approach had higher test scores on a phonological
component of the school-administered PALS assessment than did students in the nonProject Approach group. This effect was even more evident for those participants who
were of English language learner status (ELL).

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

The Effects of Supplementing Play-Based Curriculum with The Project Approach on

Phonological Awareness in Preschool

As Washington State proceeds with participating in the implementation of

Common Core measures (State of Washington, 2012), which mandates state-wide
standards for students to meet as early as Kindergarten, the question of how to prepare
and assess young children on readiness to enter and achieve success in school remains an
increasingly important issue. Effective support for early literacy development, proven to
be a large determinant of later success, is challenged by the unique spectrum of needs
found within the United States national population of increasingly diverse linguistic and
cultural backgrounds. The National Association for the Education of Young Children
(NAEYC) addresses these concerns in their position statement Responding to Linguistic
and Cultural Diversity: Recommendations for Effective Early Childhood Education
(1995) by stating that in order for young children to develop and learn optimally, the
early childhood professional must be prepared to meet their diverse developmental,
cultural, linguistic, and educational needs (p. 1).
Although many educators are searching for evidence-based curricula in
response to the No Child Left Behind legislation and the national standards movement
(Beneke & Ostrosky, 2009, Introduction), there is little evidence to support the use of any
one specific approach to early childhood curriculum. Even so, a report from the National
Assessment of Educational Progress states that two thirds of fourth grade students across
the United States do not read at grade level, and according to Cummings et al. (2010),
illiteracy puts future success at risk.

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

This study sought to determine the effectiveness of supplementing play-based

preschool curriculum with specific, project-based work (the Project Approach) on
producing phonological awareness that indicated preparedness for further reading
development before entering school in Kindergarten. There is a gap in current research
about understanding the effectiveness of emergent approaches to curriculum in promoting
specific, measurable skills, such as phonological awareness, but the results of this study
indicate that the Project Approach is in fact effective as a literacy intervention for English
language learners (ELLs), who are at greater risk for literacy failure than their Englishfluent peers.
Phonological Awareness. The term phonological processing refers to skills in
using the phonological, or sound, structure when learning how to decode written
language. PA [phonological awareness] is a subset of this type of processing, wherein
individuals are able to identify, discriminate between, and/or produce the smallest unit of
sound in words (Cummings et al., 2010). Phonological awareness can be broken down
into several subcategories of pre-literacy skills, and according to Whiteley et al. (2007),
there is a wealth of evidence that links phonological processing skills to future success in
learning to read. These skills include phonological awareness, phonological short-term
memory and ease of access to phonological information from long-term memory
(Whiteley et al., 2007). The recognition of beginning sounds, as tested on the PALS-PreK
Beginning Sound Awareness component, is particularly important for future reading
success (Cummings et al., 2010).
In order to ensure exposure to the appropriate contexts in which phonological
awareness can be developed, educators must emphasize meaningful, explicit

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

communication and quality interactions that promote language development. For young
learners to experience academic, social, and economic success, they must first make
adequate progress in learning to read early on in development, and consequently, children
who struggle to read at the start of their educational experience have significant
difficulty catching up with their peers (Cummings et al., 2010, p. 94). Furthermore,
illiteracy puts future success at risk because low reading skills have been linked to higher
incidence of delinquency, school dropouts, and unemployment (Cummings et al., 2010).
Curriculum Approaches
Educators are being called to consider the importance of quality in early
childhood curriculum in order to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse society, for
Chien et al. (2010) assert that high quality preschool programs are directly associated
with more positive child outcomes across backgrounds. The review of literature on
environmental quality in curriculum like the Project Approach is largely rooted in
constructivist theory, in which the teachers role is to provide children with rich
materials that promote child-initiated exploration (Chien et al., 2010, p. 1534), and in
sociocultural theory, in which the teacher provides frequent sensitive and responsive
interactions with children (Chien et al., 2010, p. 1534).
The Project Approach meets both of these criteria indicating quality because it
emphasizes building a framework for curriculum around the interests of any unique group
of learners, enabling differentiation and inclusionary practices through sustained, highquality interactions, and avoids compromising or neglecting the need to address the role
of content in later assessment by sustaining academic rigor that is individually
appropriate. According to Helm & Katz (2001), using the Project Approach meets the

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

needs of individual children by building on an awareness of childrens interests and high

expectations (Harte, 2010, p. 16).
In order to address its effectiveness in full, it must be noted that the Project
Approach is an approach to curriculum, rather than a curriculum with specific content
objectives, and it is thus difficult to compare it to other early childhood curriculum.
Rather, the objectives emphasized will vary significantly from project to project, even
within a classroom. As a result, the very responsiveness and elasticity that are
highlighted as the strengths of the Project Approach are likely to increase the challenge of
comparing uses of the approach across classrooms. This challenge may account, in part,
for the lack of research on its implementation and effectiveness (Beneke & Ostrosky,
2010, The Project Approach). Even so, the phases of project work outlined by Katz &
Chard (1989) provide a sense of structure and facilitate direction, even when a schedule
is not concrete. The very purpose of the Project Approach is primarily to engage children
in the research of topics that are of worthwhile and of potential interest to them
(Beneke & Ostrosky, 2009, Introduction, The Project Approach) through the
investigative process. This multidimensional approach requires them not only to be in
control of their own learning, but to pursue new knowledge in a way that is meaningful,
sensitive to their individual needs, and that requires them to engage in understanding
language through interaction.
Due to the focus of documentation practices on detailing individual performance
of classroom-based tasks, they have been shown to enhance student motivation, assist
teachers in instructional decision making, and serve as an effective means for reporting
progress to families, educators and the community (Helm et al., 2007, p. 2). The benefits

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

of documentation extend to both teacher and student, because a documentation system

not only provides a framework from which childrens work can be systematically
collected and processed (Helm et al., p. 2), but also is an opportunity for teacher training
on how to observe, collect, and analyze classroom behavior in an unbiased way.
Documentation is a way for teachers to make it possible for others to see learning
happening (Helm et al., 2007, p. 8).
Finally, according to Beneke & Ostrosky (2009), Teachers typically learn how to
implement the Project Approach as part of their teacher education programs, through inservice training, or by accessing video or reading materials (Introduction, The Project
Approach), making it a relatively accessible option for educators to use, even in
conjunction with other curricula material. Documentation also has a wide variety of
effective forms, and is a highly flexible, accessible method of assessment.
English Language Status
In order to do so in a meaningful and developmentally-appropriate way, teaching
is not only a matter of providing opportunities to acquire knowledge and skills, but also
of developing positive attitudes toward learning and using those skills, as these
dispositions cultivated early on in children have a lasting impact on future development
(Helm et al., 2007, p. 7).
This study examines the potential moderating effect of first language (Englishfluent or ELL) on the relationship between curriculum approach (use of projects vs.
without projects) and phonological awareness. Ultimately our early childhood programs
must take into account the great linguistic diversity existing in the United States today,
one that requires educators to promote effective strategies for children who are in the

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

early stages of acquiring English (Espinosa, 2010, p. 12). Empirical research studies,
such as the quasi-experimental one conducted here, are important as not only points of
insight into the complex needs of the diverse American student population, but also serve
as bridges between theory and effective practice in order to meet those needs in new
ways.
Young learners of diverse linguistic backgrounds face unique challenges in
learning, and yet educators are implored to uphold that language acquisition is essential
to the cognitive and social development of young children (NAEYC, 1995) in their
instruction. Defining readiness for reading therefore may have more than one possible
interpretation, and the implications for students whose first language is not English or for
whom certain unique educational needs present a challenge to learning are indicative of
growing need for quality differentiated instruction.
In order to ensure exposure to the appropriate contexts in which phonological
awareness can be developed, educators must emphasize meaningful communication and
interactions that promote oral language, particularly for ELLs. As outlined in the
Principles of Quality Teaching for English Language Learners (QTEL initiative),
engaging students in sustained interactions with teachers and peers (Walqu, 2010, p.
85) encourages students to deepen their connections between ideas in English, and focus
interactions on the construction of knowledge (Walqu, 2010, p. 85). This should
including sustaining a focus on language, and promoting the use of content vocabulary,
which are emphasized in the Project Approachs focus on interactions, the investigative
language of scientific research, and constructivist role of adults in learning.

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

10

Sustained experiences allow ELLs to develop an identity that includes being

capable students and language users (Walqu, 2010, p. 77). Through scaffolding these
experiences, teachers should maintain a long-term goal of empowering students to see
themselves as autonomous learners (Walqu, 2010). This aligns with a constructivist view
on curriculum design, upon which the Project Approach is based, and invites students to
become confidently engaged in their learning experience.
Previous Literature
A growing number of studies are being published on what constitutes effective
inclusive pedagogy in the classroom, i.e., instruction that can be tailored to meet the
needs of diverse or at-risk student populations. For example, Ziolkowski & Goldsteins
(2008) phonological awareness intervention with preschool children with reading delays
examined the impact of low socioeconomic status (SES) and disability on reading
success. While students of ELL status are also often of low SES and at-risk for reading
failure (Castro et al., 2011), assessment of language need can be complex when related to
overall learner identity.
A review of existing literature suggests that project work is effective because it
can be easily differentiated to meet any level of learning need, but because much of the
empirical research available addresses children with other challenges such as cognitive
disabilities or low socioeconomic status through a more easily measured intervention, it
fails to examine the ways in which emergent curriculum can minimize the risks faced by
ELLs for reading failure.
Hypotheses

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

11

The literature suggests that a main effect will occur when a specific, project-based
approach to curriculum (the Project Approach) supplements play-based learning by
increasing phonological awareness in both students who are fluent in English, and in
students who are of ELL (English language learner) status. Measured by the PALS
Beginning Sound Awareness 10-item assessment, it is hypothesized that there will be a
main effect of curriculum type, such that students in the Project Approach group will
obtain higher Beginning Sound Awareness scores than those in the non-Project Approach
group, regardless of student English language status. There will also be a main effect of
student language status such that ELL students will obtain lower Beginning Sound
Awareness scores than non-ELL students, regardless of curriculum type. Finally, there
will be an interaction of curriculum type and English language status, such that the
positive effects of the Project Approach will be more pronounced for students of ELL
status than non-ELL students.
Methods
Participants
The participants of the control group, who did not partake in the Project Approach
to curriculum, and of the treatment group, who did participate in the Project Approach to
curriculum, were sampled from a population of four play-based, NAEYC-accredited
early learning centers of mixed socioeconomic status in a large city in the Pacific
Northwest. From each center, parents were asked to self-report the English language
status (English fluent or ELL) and demographic information (gender, race/ethnicity) of
the participants, and 10 preschoolers of mixed gender and race/ethnicity were randomly

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

12

assigned to treatment and control groups (one treatment and one control for each center),
totaling 20 participants per center and 80 participants total.
Of the 80 total participants, 38 were boys and 42 were girls; 28 participants were
Hispanic; 7 were Native American; 13 were African American; 14 were Asian American;
and 18 were European American. The percentage of ELL students reported at each of the
four schools were as follows: 42% of participant parents in School A reported ELL
language status; 40% in School B; 44% in School C; and 41% in School D. All children
met the inclusion criterion of full-time enrollment for their final preschool year, and all
anticipated transitioning to Kindergarten the following school year.
All Human Subjects guidelines have been followed in the execution of this
research.
Measures
The English language learning status of the participants in this study was assessed
by asking parents to self-report English language status (ELL or non-ELL) on a survey
distributed by researchers. Measurement of phonological awareness included an analysis
of pre- and post-test scores on the Beginning Sound Awareness component of the schooladministered PALS-PreK assessment at the beginning and end of the final preschool
year.
PALS-PreK Beginning Sound Awareness: As outlined by Townsend &
Konold (2009), the PALS-PreK assessment is administered one-on-one by teachers to
preschool children, and takes approximately 20 to 25 minutes to complete in total. It
includes eight subtests: Name Writing, Upper-Case Alphabet Knowledge, Lower-Case
Alphabet Knowledge, Letter Sounds, Beginning Sound Awareness, Print and Word

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

13

Awareness, Rhyme Awareness, and Nursery Rhyme Awareness, but this study chose to
analyze the results of only one component of the test, Beginning Sound Awareness, as an
appropriate assessment of the participatory population. The Beginning Sounds portion
consists of 10 items, and requires children to orally demonstrate the beginning sounds of
words that are presented aloud by the assessment administrator (Townsend & Konold,
2009). The assessment is conducted three times throughout the school year, but this study
chose to examine the results of the first and last assessments in order to see overall
change, as opposed to benchmark progress.
Reliability is reported in the instruments technical manual, and content validity
was supported through the use of advisory and review panel. Criterion-related validity is
supported through measures of both concurrent and predictive validity, and average
internal consistency estimates from the total pilot sample are acceptable (Cronbachs =
.82). Interrater reliability was also reported to be stable for the task (r = .99) (Townsend
& Konold, 2009).
The Project Approach: The Project Approach is an approach to curriculum that
consists of three specific phases of investigative work and relies on forms of
documentation to assess progress in learning. Although not outlined in a concrete
schedule, the phases follow a natural sequence that is designed to suit the unique learning
of individuals in a particular classroom. Within each of the two treatment groups in this
study, project work followed the three phases outline by Katz & Chard (1989), but
projects over the course of the school year varied in length and theme by classroom. Each
treatment group was asked to complete at least five projects to be reviewed by Chard and
members of the Project Approach Teachers Network (PATEN).

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

14

Procedure
The participatory early learning centers were contacted and asked for permission
to implement an early literacy intervention through a specific kind of project-based
learning, and for permission to analyze the data of the subsequent PALS-PreK post-test
Beginning Sound Awareness component of the assessment, which was already in place as
an instructional effectiveness measure by all four schools. Members of this study did not
conduct the component of the assessment itself, but collaborated with school
administrators to analyze the test results; the school itself conducted administration of the
assessment separately.
Dr. Sylvia Chard, Professor Emeritus of Early Childhood Education at the
University of Alberta, Canada, provided in-depth Project Approach training for the two
educators participating in the treatment group, in which they acquired the necessary skills
to implement this specific kind of project-based learning, according to its three phases.
This included a four-day workshop of Professional Development training sessions in
partnership with a local public university, and as part of the universitys professional
outreach program for educators, Chard also facilitated a supplementary one-day
presentation in which she led a discussion about the ways in which the Project Approach
specifically helps students gain 21st century skills. These skills include how to
communicate effectively and clearly in diverse linguistic environments (Partnership for
21st Century Skills, n.d., Communication and Collaboration).
Chard was present to observe and give feedback on each schools project work
once a month throughout the course of the school year, and throughout the entire course
of the study, members of the Project Approach Teachers Network (PATEN) were

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

15

available to monitor and support the implementation of the Project Approach within each
of the two classes that participated in the studys treatment, providing guidance, project
feedback and classroom visits to ensure implementation validity.
In Phase I, project work was initiated by engaging the childrens interest through
an initial group discussion, where connections are facilitated between the new and what is
previous knowledge (Katz & Chard, 1989). For the especially young children in this
study, this was accomplished by encouraging the treatment participants to generate
predictions and to discuss their questions, as recommended by Katz & Chard (1989). The
end of Phase I occurred when consensus had been reached about the direction of
investigation planned (determination of research questions).
Phase II began with a variety of possible methods of first-hand investigation,
which sought to specifically find answers to the questions posed by students. These
methods included, but were not limited to, surveying peers, interviewing members of the
community, and creating representations of their learning (such as observational
drawings). The final phase, Phase III, involved a cooperative decision to end the project
work on the particular subject chosen. The teacher may have initiated this phase, but as a
result of seeing that the majority of learning had been exhausted (at least for the time
being).
Student progress and understanding was made visible by documentation, in which
representations of students knowledge were created throughout the process of
investigation; these included, but were not limited to, observational drawings, video
footage, surveys, and modeling.

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

16

For members of the control groups, play-based center curriculum remained the
same, and did not include specific engagement in project-based work. Activity centers
were maintained and included developmentally appropriate sensory and art activities,
puzzles and games. Students engaged in a daily schedule, in which circle time sharing,
storytelling, outdoor play and free-choice time were options. Participants in the treatment
group also maintained the same activity centers and daily schedule options, but
consistently supplemented all choices with the phases of project work.
Results
There was a significant main effect of curriculum type such that students who
participated in the non-Project Approach group (M = 3.25) obtained lower final scores on
the phonological component of the PALS assessment than did students who participated
in the Project Approach group (M = 7.58), F (1, 76) = 461.19, p < .001. A significant
main effect was also found of English language status such that students whose selfreport indicated that ELL status (M = 4.00) obtained much lower final assessment scores
than did students were non-ELLs (M = 6.82).
Finally, there was a significant interaction between approach to curriculum and
English language status (ELL or non-ELL), F (1, 76) = 14.81. Among students were
fluent in English (non-ELL), those who were in the non-Project Approach group (M =
5.05) produced notably lower test scores than those in the Project Approach group (M =
8.60), but for ELL students, those in the non-Project Approach group had much lower
test scores (M = 1.45) than those in the Project Approach group (M = 6.55).

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

17

The use of a quasi-experimental design and 2x2 factorial ANOVA is appropriate

for this study was because it involved a categorical independent variable and moderator
variable, both with two levels, and a continuous, interval dependent variable.

Table 1
Test Score Averages by Curriculum Approach and English Language Status

English Language Status

No Project Approach

Project Approach

M (SD)

M (SD)

Fluent

5.05 (1.00)

8.60 (1.00)

ELL

1.45 (.60)

6.55 (.95)

N=

40

40

Discussion
Limitations
The variations in language ability of participants is a notable limitation of this
study; because English language proficiency was measured solely by parental self-report
of English language status (ELL or non-ELL), the range of possible linguistic or
cognitive abilities existing amongst this population of learners could not be examined.
Another limitation is that the mid-year PALS-PreK Beginning Sound Awareness results
were not accounted for in this analysis, nor were all eight components of the entire
assessment examined. As mentioned in the literature review, it must also be noted that the

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

18

effectiveness of an approach to curriculum such as the Project Approach is difficult to

measure because it is emergent; that is, it relies heavily on the unique and individual
interests of students within a particular classroom to determine a course of study.
Future Research
Continuing future research must be conducted to address existing gaps in
empirical data regarding the measurable effectiveness of emergent curriculum. Although
assessments such as PALS-PreK offer an indication of progress through benchmark
testing, they cannot account for personalized aspects of progress that are intrinsic to the
highly individualized nature of emergent, project-based curriculum. It is therefore likely
that a qualitative method of research would more comprehensively address the
complexity inherent in implementation of the Project Approach.
Conclusion
This study has found that, although it is difficult to measure and standardize the
ways in which emergent approaches to curriculum such as the Project Approach benefit
children with varying degrees of phonological awareness proficiency, it is clear that
engaging in the specific, project-based work outlined in the Project Approach can
positively impact the literacy outcomes of preschool students as they prepare to enter
Kindergarten through emphasis on oral language development, documentation as
assessment, and relationship building in the classroom. Engaging in project work
promotes phonological awareness by allowing all students an opportunity to participate in
the curriculum in such a way that is tailored to their individual abilities to contribute,
regardless of English language proficiency.

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

19

References
Beneke, S., & Ostrosky, M. M. (June 06, 2009). Teachers' views of the efficacy of
incorporating the project approach into classroom practice with diverse
learners. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 11, 1.)
Castro, D. C., Paez, M. M., Dickinson, D. K., & Frede, E. (March 01, 2011). Promoting
language and literacy in young dual language learners: Research, practice, and
policy. Child Development Perspectives, 5, 1, 15-21.
Chien, N. C., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R. C., Ritchie, S., Bryant, D. M.,
Clifford, R. M., ... Barbarin, O. A. (January 01, 2010). Children's classroom
engagement and school readiness gains in prekindergarten. Child Development,
81, 5.)
Cummings, K., Kaminski, R., Good, R., & O'Neil, M. (January 01, 2011). Assessing
phonemic awareness in preschool and kindergarten: Development and initial
validation of first found fluency. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36, 2, 94106.
Harte, H. A. (January 01, 2010). The Project Approach: A strategy for inclusive
classrooms. Young Exceptional Children, 13, 3, 15-27.
Helm, J. H.. From theory to practice: The project approach. In File, N., Mueller, J. J. J., &
Wisneski, D. B. B. (2011), Curriculum in early childhood education: Reexamined, rediscovered, renewed (p. 67-79). Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.
Helm, J. H., Beneke, S., & Steinheimer, K. (1998). Windows on learning: Documenting
young children's work. New York: Teachers College Press.
Helm, J. H., & Katz, L. G. (2001). Young investigators: the project approach in

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

20

the early years. New York: Teachers College Press.

Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. C. (1989). Engaging children's minds: The project approach.
Norwood, N.J: Ablex Pub. Corp.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1995). Responding to
linguistic and cultural diversity: Recommendations for effective early childhood
education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (n.d.). Communication and collaboration. Framework
for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/about-us/p21framework/261
State of Washington, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2012).
Implementing the common core state standards for english language arts and
mathematics in washington state. Retrieved from
http://www.k12.wa.us/corestandards/pubdocs/ImplementingCCSSinWA.pdf
Townsend, M., & Konold, T. (January 01, 2010). Measuring early literacy skills: A
latent variable investigation of the phonological awareness literacy screening for
preschool. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 2, 115-128.
Walqui, A., Van, L. L., & WestEd (Organization). (2010). Scaffolding the academic
success of adolescent English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. San
Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Whiteley, H. E., Smith, C. D., & Connors, L. (August 01, 2007). Young children at risk
of literacy difficulties: factors predicting recovery from risk following
phonologically based intervention. Journal of Research in Reading, 30, 3, 249269.

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

21

Ziolkowski, R. A., & Goldstein, H. (January 01, 2008). Effects of an embedded

phonological awareness intervention during repeated book reading on preschool
children with language delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 31, 1, 67-90.

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

22

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

23

Running Head: EFFECTS OF EARLY LITERACY CURRICULUM

24