For Practitioners

Welcome teachers, principals, superintendents, and other community members who are actively involved in early childhood education. This page has been created for you – to provide simple, practical pieces of information taken from our research. We hope that you find it useful and applicable in your work.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to reach out! We are here to help.

SSSR 2025 Conference Recap

Kim et al. (2025)

SSSR Early Literacy and Learning Lab Conference recap: Society for the Scientific Study of Reading Today we are recapping: What research-tested curricula and interventions positively impact young children’s language learning? Kim, H., Piasta, S.B., & Liu, Y. (2025, July 16-19). What research-tested curricula and interventions positively impact young children’s language learning? [Paper presentation]. Society for the Scientific Study of Reading Annual Meeting, Calgary, Canada.
What research-tested curricula and interventions positively impact young children’s language learning? Research-tested programs that support language in classrooms and are readily available to teachers do exist. However, most are not widely used in classrooms, and not all studies of these curricula meet evidence standards. There is continued need for research-tested programs that are accessible and meet teachers’ needs, as well as for research on effective language instruction. Kim et al. 2025
34 unique research-tested, language-focused Tier 1 and Tier 2 programs with positive impacts on P-G1 language learning. Teacher or technology as implementer and available commercially or via Researcher's public website: Read Aloud Curriculum (Baker et al., 2013, 2020; Fien et al., 2011; Puhalla, 2011)​ Developing Talkers (Zucker et al., 2013)​ Elements of Reading Vocabulary (Apthorp et al., 2012)​ Head Start REDI (Bierman et al., 2008)​ Let's Know! (Language and Reading Research Consortium et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2017, 2022)​ Model of Reading Engagement (Kim et al., 2021)​ Nuffield Early Language Intervention-Preschool (Fricke et al., 2013, 2017; Haley et al., 2017; West et al., 2021, 2024)​ Read It Again! PreK (Justice et al., 2010)​ Story Champs (Petersen et al., 2022; Spencer et al., 2015a, 2015b; Spencer & Petersen, 2018) ​ Story Friends and Story Friends plus Classwide Vocabulary Review Strategies (Goldstein et al., 2016; Kelley et al., 2015, 2020; Madsen et al., 2023; Seven et al., 2020)​ Teaching Early Literacy and Language (Gray et al., 2024)​ World of Words (Neuman et al., 2011, 2021; Neuman & Kaefer, 2018) Teacher or technology as implementer and Not (yet?) commercially or publicly available: Read-Play-Learn (Dickinson et al., 2019; Hadley et al., 2019)​ Early Vocabulary Intervention (Coyne et al., 2010, 2022a, 2022b)​ Evidence-Based Program for Integrated Curricula (Fantuzzo et al., 2011)​ Let's Talk Programme (Hutchinson & Clegg, 2011)​ Reading and Language Intervention (Duff et al., 2014)​ Self-Regulated Strategy Development-Plus (Kim et al., 2024) *some SRSD but not SRSD Plus materials available online)​ Talk Boost (available in UK only; Lee & Pring, 2016)​ Words of Oral Reading and Language Development (Gonzalez et al., 2011; Pollard Durodola et al., 2011)​ Unnamed curricula/intervention: ​ Denton et al. (2010) Research staff as implementer and Not (yet?) commercially or publicly available: Content-Area Literacy Instruction (Connor et al., 2017)​ Language in Motion (Phillips et al., 2016, 2021, 2024)​ Dialogic Reading-Enhanced (Lonigan et al., 2013; Phillips et al., 2021, 2024)​ Comprehension Monitoring and Providing Awareness of Story Structure (Phillips et al., 2021, 2024)​ Let's Talk! (Lake & Evangelou, 2019)​ Oral Narrative Intervention Programme (Glisson et al., 2019)​ Unnamed curricula/interventions: ​ Derri et al. (2010); Duncan et al. (2019); Dyson et al. (2017); Goldstein et al., (2017); Lonigan & Phillips (2016); ​ Pullen et al. (2010); Silverman et al. (2013) Kim et al. 2025

Gabas et al. (2025)

Conference recap: Society for the Scientific Study of Reading Today we are recapping: Language as the vehicle, not the destination: What shapes early childhood teachers’ language practices Gabas, C., Schachter, R. E., Wernick, P., Piasta, S. B., & Purtell, K. (2025, July 16-19). Language as the vehicle, not the destination: What shapes early childhood teachers’ language practices [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Calgary, Canada
We found that when early childhood teachers enacted language supportive practices, they were not necessarily focused on language development; but rather, teachers were focused on building meaningful connections among the content, activities, and children’s interests and personal experiences. Thus, fostering connections and children's meaning-making was an indirect pathway to language development.
An important implication of this study is that professional development may need to focus on developing teachers' instructional decision-making and help teachers integrate their knowledge, orientations, and broader goals to support their implementation of language practices in the classroom.

Hudson et al. (2025)

Conference recap: Society for the Scientific Study of Reading SSSR Early Literacy and Learning Lab Today we are recapping Patterns of preschool phonological awareness development and later literacy outcomes Hudson, A.K., Piasta, S.B., Logan, J.A.R., Zettler-Greeley, C.M., Lewis, K., Shen, Y. Shea, Z, & Bailet, L. (2025, July 16-19). Patterns of preschool phonological awareness development and later literacy outcomes [Poster presentation]. Society for the Scientific Study of Reading Annual Meeting, Calgary, Canada.
Using latent profile analysis, researchers identified four developmental profiles: Growing PA, No Gain, Growing PS & PA, and High Achievers. Notably, over half of the at-risk children showed little to no growth in PS or PA, raising concerns about the quality of phonological instruction in preschool settings.
Major Takeaway #2 Socioeconomic factors like family income and age were linked to better initial PS and PA skills.

2025 Publications

Piasta et al. (2025)

New Publication Alert! Alphabet Knowledge Trajectories and U.S. Children’s Later Reading and Spelling Shayne B. Piasta, Alida K. Hudson, Jessica A. R. Logan, Kandia Lewis, Cynthia M. Zettler-Greeley Piasta et al. 2025
We conceptually replicated and extended research on alphabet knowledge by examining profiles of preschool children’s alphabet learning trajectories, as opposed to simply alphabet knowledge levels at a particular time point, and whether these were associated with Grade 1 reading and spelling. What we found (arrow) Piasta et al. 2025
New Publication Alert! Alphabet Knowledge Trajectories and U.S. Children’s Later Reading and Spelling Shayne B. Piasta, Alida K. Hudson, Jessica A. R. Logan, Kandia Lewis, Cynthia M. Zettler-Greeley Piasta et al. 2025
We conceptually replicated and extended research on alphabet knowledge by examining profiles of preschool children’s alphabet learning trajectories, as opposed to simply alphabet knowledge levels at a particular time point, and whether these were associated with Grade 1 reading and spelling. What we found (arrow) Piasta et al. 2025
Key Takeaways 1. We found multiple trajectories for both letter-name and letter-sound knowledge that differed in how many letters children knew at the beginning or end of preschool AND their alphabet knowledge learning over time. Piasta et al. 2025
Key Takeaways 1. Among preschool children who started preschool with lower alphabet knowledge, some learned letter names and sounds over time, catching up to children who started with average alphabet knowledge. Others did not exhibit substantial learning or catch up to peers. Piasta et al. 2025
Why is this important? On measures of kindergarten readiness and Grade 1 word reading and spelling, children who started preschool with low alphabet knowledge but grew over time outperformed the children who had initially low alphabet knowledge that stayed low. Piasta et al. 2025
Why is this important? On measures of kindergarten readiness and Grade 1 word reading and spelling, children who started preschool with low alphabet knowledge but grew over time outperformed the children who had initially low alphabet knowledge that stayed low. Piasta et al. 2025

Shen et al. (2025)

New Publication Alert! Emergent writing development and later reading abilities for monolingual and bilingual children identified as at risk for reading difficulties Ye Shen, Shayne B. Piasta, Alida K. Hudson, Jessica A. R. Logan, Kandia Lewis, Cynthia M. Zettler-Greeley Shen et al. 2025
Key Takeaways 1. Children’s initial emergent writing skills and their growth rates in preschool are important in their acquisition of later reading skills. This suggests that preschool may serve as a critical period to support growth in children’s emergent writing skills. Shen et al. 2025
Key Takeaways 2. In practice, this could mean incorporating explicit writing opportunities into early literacy instruction, including activities like letter formation, name writing, and CVC word spelling, which provide critical scaffolds for reading. Assessments should regularly include measures of emergent writing, not just emergent reading, to capture a more complete picture of children’s literacy development. Shen et al. 2025
Key Takeaways 3. The positive relations between emergent writing and subsequent reading were consistent regardless of whether a child was bilingual or not, highlighting the universal importance of writing on reading for both monolingual and bilingual children. Shen et al. 2025

Piasta et al. (2025)

New Publication Alert! Initial Skills Predict Preschoolers' Emergent Literacy Development but Do Not Moderate Response to Intervention Shayne B. Piasta, Zhiling Shea, Alida K. Hudson, Ye Shen, Jessica A. R. Logan, Cynthia Zettler-Greeley, Kandia Lewis Piasta et al. 2025
We examined whether children's emergent literacy skills at the beginning of the preschool year affected their response to small-group emergent literacy instruction. What we found (arrow) Piasta et al. 2025
Key takeaways 1. Beginning-of-year letter-name knowledge, phonological awareness, and vocabulary skills directly predicted corresponding end-of-year skills. Piasta et al. 2025
Key Takeaways 2. Beginning-of-year letter-sound knowledge did not predict end-of-year letter-sound knowledge, likely due to children's very limited knowledge of letter sounds at the beginning of the year. Piasta et al. 2025
Key Takeaways 3. Beginning-of-year emergent literacy skills did not predict response to small-group literacy instruction. Piasta et al. 2025
Together, findings suggest that children's end-of-year emergent literacy skills were largely driven by their beginning-of-year skills. In other words, children who began the preschool year with higher emergent literacy skills also ended the year with higher emergent literacy skills. This highlights the need for early literacy interventions that disrupt children's typical literacy trajectories and facilitate literacy learning for children most at risk for literacy difficulties. Piasta et al. 2025

Piasta et al. (2025)

Over the past 5 years, our ProPELL team has focused on preschool children’s language learning – both how early language learning gains predict later reading outcomes and what classroom practices/factors are associated with language learning. The findings are summarized in the newest CCEC Research Brief, ProPELLing Language Learning in Preschool Classrooms. Read the key takeaways here, and find the full research brief, including implications for preschool practitioners and stakeholders, using the link below.

  1. Policy is not directly informing teachers’ purposes and practices around language.
  2. Language is essential for literacy development and needs to be supported as early as possible.
  3. Teachers’ pedagogical reasoning is important for generating language learning opportunities.
  4. No one, specific classroom practice stood out as essential for supporting language learning; rather, we found that classrooms in which children made higher language gains featured constellations of practices (below).
  5. Having a broader educational purpose to help children find their voice and communicate may ProPELL generative classroom language practices.
Yellow star: TEACHER Middle stars: Integrate concepts and scaffold cognitive challenge for children across the school year Offer children explicit guidance and varied opportunities to practice/apply knowledge Flexible and attuned such that instruction and activities are responsive to children's interests and needs Language specific practices embedded throughout day and across contexts Intentional use of activity context and grouping size to promote transfer of knowledge among adults and peers LARGE BLUE STAR: Language learning

Read the full research brief here.

Lewis et al. (2025)

New Publication Alert! Do classroom and home environments jointly contribute to literacy gains for preschoolers at-risk for literacy difficulties? K. Lewis, A. Hudson, J. A. R. Logan, S. B. Piasta, C. M. Zettler-Greeley, L. L. Bailet
Key takeaways 1. Classroom instructional supports meaningfully contribute to letter writing gains for children who received small-group literacy intervention. Lewis et al. 2025
Key takeaways 2. Shared reading activities at home are related to meaningful gains in print knowledge, phonological awareness, and letter writing for children who received the intervention. Lewis et al. 2025
Why is this important? While classroom and home environments don’t jointly shape intervention success, they each play a crucial role. Notably, children in classrooms with lower instructional supports and those exposed to more shared reading activities at home may benefit from small-group early literacy interventions. Lewis et al. 2025
Why is this important? These findings suggest that tailoring literacy interventions with an awareness of both classroom and home environments could help maximize literacy gains. Lewis et al. 2025

EHE Research Forum 2025

Arslan, et al. (2024)

The Ohio State University Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy Early Literacy and Learning Lab Conference recap: 2025 EHE Research Forum Today we are recapping: Language and Literacy Supports Provided to Grade 1 Monolingual and Multilingual Students with Comprehension Difficulties in Central Ohio Arslan, Z., Lightcap, Z., Piasta, S.B., Bridges, M., Fleming, K., Hogan, T. (2025, February 20). Language and Literacy Supports Provided to Grade 1 Monolingual and Multilingual Students with Comprehension Difficulties in Central Ohio [Oral presentation].
The Ohio State University Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy Early Literacy and Learning Lab Conference recap: 2025 EHE Research Forum This study examines the language and literacy supports provided by first-grade teachers in central Ohio to monolingual and multilingual students with comprehension difficulties, analyzing the types, frequency, and effectiveness of these interventions. Key takeaways (arrow)
The Ohio State University Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy Early Literacy and Learning Lab Conference recap: 2025 EHE Research Forum 1. About 72% of first-grade teachers reported providing language and literacy interventions for students with comprehension difficulties, including Title I Reading support, small-group instruction, and specialized services.
The Ohio State University Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy Early Literacy and Learning Lab Conference recap: 2025 EHE Research Forum 2. Multilingual students were more likely to receive ELL services and had more frequent language support (20-30 minutes daily), whereas monolingual students primarily received reading interventions with less frequent sessions (3-4 times a week).
The Ohio State University Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy Early Literacy and Learning Lab Conference recap: 2025 EHE Research Forum 3. Only 4 out of 118 students received interventions with positive evidence of effectiveness; while Lexia Core 5 and Reading Recovery have evidence of positive impacts, Orton-Gillingham has been evaluated, but there is insufficient large-scale research to confirm its effectiveness across broader student populations.

Kim, et al. (2024)

The Ohio State University Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy Early Literacy and Learning Lab Conference recap: 2025 EHE Research Forum Today we are recapping: Research-tested, language-focused Tier 1 and Tier 2 programs for preschool to grade 1 classrooms: A restricted systematic review Kim, H., Liu, Y., & Piasta, S. B. (2025, February 20). Research-tested, language-focused Tier 1 and Tier 2 programs for preschool to grade 1 classrooms: A restricted systematic review [Paper presentation]. College of Education and Human Ecology Research Forum, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
The Ohio State University Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy Early Literacy and Learning Lab Conference recap: 2025 EHE Research Forum Key Takeaways Enhancing language program accessibility: Of 20 teacher-implemented programs, only 11 are commercially or publicly available, limiting teachers’ access to research-tested language programs. Even when available, studies often lack clear guidance on how to access them, restricting broader adoption or scalability. Improving accessibility is crucial to better support children's language learning in classrooms.
The Ohio State University Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy Early Literacy and Learning Lab Conference recap: 2025 EHE Research Forum Key Takeaways Bridging the implementation gap: Among 34 research-tested language programs, about half were exclusively implemented by research staff, not teachers. Further research is needed to determine whether the positive effects hold when teachers implement the programs. Additionally, missing details on implementers may hinder adoption and replication, highlighting the need for studies to provide specific implementer information.

CCEC Symposium on Children 2024

Kim, et al. (2024)

The Ohio State University Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy Early Literacy and Learning Lab Conference recap: 2024 CCEC Symposium on Children Today we are recapping: Preschool teachers’ use of scaffolding during shared book reading: Are there differences between classrooms in which children exhibit higher versus lower language gains? Kim, H., Bosire, J. P. O., Schachter, R. E., & Piasta, S. B. (2024, October 3). Preschool teachers’ use of scaffolding during shared book reading: Are there differences between classrooms in which children exhibit higher versus lower language gains? [Poster presentation]. Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy Symposium on Children, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
The Ohio State University Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy Early Literacy and Learning Lab Conference recap: 2024 CCEC Symposium on Children

Lightcap, et al. (2024)

The Ohio State University Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy Early Literacy and Learning Lab Conference recap: 2024 CCEC Symposium on Children Central Ohio Grade 1 teachers’ reported use of research-tested language and literacy curricula and interventions Lightcap, Z., Arslan, Z., Bridges, M., Piasta, S. B., Fleming, K., Hogan, T., & Wilson, A. (2024, October). Central Ohio grade 1 teachers’ reported use of research-tested language and literacy curricula and interventions [Poster presentation]. 2024 Symposium on Children. Columbus, OH, USA.
The Ohio State University Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy Early Literacy and Learning Lab Conference recap: 2024 CCEC Symposium on Children Central Ohio Grade 1 teachers’ reported use of research-tested language and literacy curricula and interventions Key Takeaways 1. Teachers reported spending between 80 and 900 minutes weekly on whole-class language and literacy instruction (M = 398.49, SD = 158.83).
The Ohio State University Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy Early Literacy and Learning Lab Conference recap: 2024 CCEC Symposium on Children Central Ohio Grade 1 teachers’ reported use of research-tested language and literacy curricula and interventions Key Takeaways 2. The curricula reported by Ohio first-grade teachers were analyzed to determine whether they were research-tested. Teachers used 22 different literacy programs. Only three of the reported curricula (Lexia Reading, McGraw-Hill Open Court Reading, and Fountas & Pinnell Leveled Literacy Instruction and Guided Reading) had evidence of positive effects on literacy outcomes, but none had proven effects on language outcomes.
The Ohio State University Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy Early Literacy and Learning Lab Conference recap: 2024 CCEC Symposium on Children Central Ohio Grade 1 teachers’ reported use of research-tested language and literacy curricula and interventions Key Takeaways 3. The study highlights the need for professional development to help teachers and administrators select and implement evidence-based programs that address both literacy and language skills effectively.

SSSR 2024 Conference Recap

Read on to see summaries of the presentations from the 2024 Society for the Scientific Study of Reading Conference that came from our lab members and collaborators.

Piasta, et al. (2024)

Park, et al. (2024)

Schachter, et al. (2024)

Sheranian, et al. (2024)

Bridges, et al. (2024)