Initial Implementation Outcomes for Scripted and Adaptive Versions of a Read-Aloud Curricula for Kindergarten and Grade 1 Teachers

• In Event: Investigating Teacher Knowledge and Adaptability: Enhancing Literacy Outcomes in K-3 Students

Abstract

Objectives
This study compared teacher’s preferences and implementation outcomes for two versions of a supplemental read-aloud curriculum. One curriculum was fully scripted and the other trained teachers to make structured adaptations. This study is an initial look at implementation outcomes when teachers were randomly assigned to use scripted or adaptive versions of the curriculum. We also consider how teachers’ preferences for a scripted or adaptive curriculum and their baseline knowledge and skills relate to implementation outcomes.
Theoretical Framework
Although extensive meta-analytic research shows read-alouds are effective (e.g., Fitton et al., 2018; Mol et al., 2009; Dowdall et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2007, 2015), it is not clear how to best support educators to implement these 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 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 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).

Methods
Kindergarten and Grade 1 teachers (n=54) were randomly assigned to the Scripted or Adaptive condition. Both curriculum conditions included three core components: explicit vocabulary instruction, open-ended questions, and scaffolding. For the Adaptive condition, changes were made to the following components of the curriculum to promote teacher tailoring of lesson content to match students’ needs: content packaging, removal of elements, and lengthening of lesson preparation time.
Data Sources
Data sources included exit interviews with teachers, an implementation perceptions survey adapted from the Determinants of Implementation Behaviors Questionnaire (DIBQ; Huijg et al., 2014; constructs include appropriateness, feasibility, acceptability, usability), dosage logs, adherence observations, and a teacher knowledge survey, Teachers' Acquired Language Knowledge (TALK; Phillips et al., 2020).

Results
Teacher exit interviews indicated that 87.76% preferred the more efficient “softly scripted” version over the adaptive version, which 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 in adherence or dosage. Teachers’ baseline knowledge and skills for supporting language comprehension related to fidelity of implementation and their perceived appropriateness.

Scholarly Significance
The results indicate teachers of young children are comfortable with “softly 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 guide, while considering ways to promote adaptations that allow teachers to efficiently tailor lessons to their students’ diverse learning needs.

Authors

• Michael Peter Mesa, UTHealth Houston

• Tricia A. Zucker, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston