Multisyllabic implementation fidelity in upper elementary and professional development considerations: a pilot

Introduction: This study aimed to investigate instructors' implementation fidelity of a program targeting multisyllabic decoding and encoding and its effects on upper elementary students' reading and spelling performance. Additionally, the research explored the influence of professional development (PD) and contextual factors on teachers' instructional practices.

Methods: The study involved nine female instructors from three adjacent elementary schools, including two classroom teachers who provided whole-group instruction and seven interventionists who worked with small groups. Student participants were 64 third to fifth grade learners. PD occurred prior to the study, accompanied by weekly coaching during the seven-week instructional period.

Results: Results indicated that higher fidelity of implementation for a greater number of lessons taught led to statistically significant improvements in student outcomes compared to lower fidelity for fewer lessons, which still yielded advancements in spelling and vocabulary. Furthermore, teachers exhibited significant knowledge gains from pretest to posttest, with feedback addressing factors impacting implementation fidelity.

Discussion: The study discusses implications for PD and effective program implementation.

Introduction

As students enter upper elementary grades, the demands for text comprehension increase. Foundational instruction to support decoding is focused upon heavily in early elementary grades; however, as students move into later grades, the emphasis shifts to reading more complex texts to gain information and further learning, rather than focusing on acquiring word reading abilities (Chall, 1983). That said, the need for word-level instruction likely does not decrease for upper elementary students, particularly those who struggle. Research suggests that students benefit from focused word reading instruction, particularly that which focuses on multisyllabic words. While such instruction is likely beneficial, teachers' approaches, knowledge of linguistic and morphological concepts, and their self-efficacy varies (e.g., Hudson et al., 2021), and it is important to consider the impacts of such factors on student outcomes. As a result, this case study sought to examine instructors' implementation fidelity of a program designed to enhance multisyllabic decoding and encoding, as well as its impact on students' reading and spelling performance. Furthermore, the research investigated the effects of professional development (PD) and contextual factors on teachers' instructional practices. The following sections first comment on multisyllabic reading, then teacher knowledge, and then on the role of PD on the effects of implementation fidelity.

Multisyllabic decoding and encoding

It has long been held that once students enter the upper-elementary grades, they transition from learning to read to reading to learn. A key aspect of this transition involves mastering multisyllabic words, which are essential for understanding complex texts across various subjects. Multisyllabic words are prevalent in everyday language and in academic texts. They can be more challenging to decipher based on their less straightforward and predictable relationships between structure and pronunciation (Tortorelli et al., 2024). These words are often more rare and specialized to specific disciplines, further adding to their difficulty (Dawson et al., 2023). As students progress through grades, their exposure to these words increases (e.g., Kearns and Hiebert, 2022), making vocabulary development essential for comprehension. A robust vocabulary is directly correlated with reading comprehension and overall academic success (Graves, 2019). Instruction focusing on multisyllabic words helps students decode complex vocabulary, which supports their understanding of texts (Nagy and Townsend, 2012), often supporting students to use a variety of strategies, skills, and knowledge in order to decode and encode these more challenging words. Knowing how to decode multisyllabic words enhances students' phonological awareness and decoding skills. Research indicates that explicit instruction in word structure, including syllable types and patterns, equips students with strategies to break down complex words (Apel and Henbest, 2020). This skill is crucial for reading fluency, as students who can decode multisyllabic words read more confidently and with fluent expression.

The ability to decode multisyllabic words is positively correlated with enhanced reading comprehension. As students develop proficiency in processing complex words, they are more fluent in their reading and better equipped to focus on the meaning of the text. Research by Kieffer and Lesaux (2012) indicates that students who receive instruction in academic vocabulary, including multisyllabic words, exhibit significant improvements in comprehension, particularly when engaging with reading passages that incorporate such vocabulary.

Critically, mastery of multisyllabic words is associated with overall academic achievement. Students who encounter difficulties in reading often struggle in other subject areas, especially those that require advanced vocabulary skills (Oakhill and Cain, 2012). By prioritizing instruction in multisyllabic words in upper elementary grades, when students' exposure to these words dramatically increases, educators can effectively support struggling readers, thereby mitigating the risk of academic underperformance across the curriculum.

Teacher knowledge

Student success in reading and spelling of multisyllabic words is dependent on high-quality instruction from teachers who may be called to provide differentiated support and guide students who find such words challenging. For such support to be effective, teachers should be familiar with different syllable types (closed, open, silent e, vowel team, r-controlled, C+le) as this knowledge is essential for teaching students how to decode multisyllabic words (Vaughn et al., 2022). Understanding these syllable types allows teachers to provide explicit instruction on how to break down complex words into smaller, more manageable parts. Effective instruction also includes word study approaches that focus on morphology (the study of word structures) and etymology (the study of word origins). This not only helps students understand how to decode multisyllabic words but also enhances their vocabulary and comprehension skills by supporting students to understand word meanings more deeply (Carlisle, 2010). Teachers should integrate activities that promote morphological awareness, such as analyzing prefixes, suffixes, and roots.

Teachers should encourage students to use contextual clues to aid in the understanding of multisyllabic words and promote flexibility in students' identification of syllables and pronunciation of vowels (Kearns and Cooper Borkenhagen, 2024). When readers encounter a new or complex word, they employ their graphophonological knowledge to decode it, access its semantic meaning, and utilize cognitive flexibility to adjust their approach based on the reading context. This integrated process facilitates fluent reading and comprehension, allowing readers to navigate texts efficiently and effectively. Instruction should include strategies for using surrounding text to infer meanings, which can help students become more adept at understanding complex vocabulary in various contexts (Beck et al., 2002).

Professional development and fidelity of implementation

In order to better support schools, teachers, and their students, PD is often employed, particularly to initiate new programming or shift instructional foci. PD can powerfully shape and shift teachers' knowledge, beliefs, and practices (Evans, 2014). Research demonstrates the powerful potential of PD to enhance teachers' instructional repertoires as it relates to literacy (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Kennedy, 2016) and to positively impact student achievement (Basma and Savage, 2018; Didion et al., 2020; Yoon et al., 2007). In order for PD to be effective toward impacting what teachers know, feel, and do (i.e., their knowledge, beliefs, and practices) and/or to improve children's literacy outcomes, it must contain particular features. These include opportunities for active learning, collective and collaborative learning, alignment with teachers' contexts, a clear content focus, supportive feedback from an expert or coach, and sufficient intensity and duration (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Desimone, 2009). Overall, PD can support teachers' understanding of concepts and support their implementation.

Relatedly, fidelity of implementation refers to the degree to which a program and intervention is delivered as intended and is theorized to positively relate to student outcomes (Noell et al., 2000), however this relationship is somewhat complex. Fidelity includes five key dimensions: (1) adherence to the intended program, (2) quality of the delivery including enthusiasm, preparedness, and beliefs about the program and its effectiveness, (3) dosage or the quantity/length/frequency of implemented components, (4) responsiveness and enagement of the participants, and (5) differentiation of the program compared to control or business-as-usual, in so far as implementation includes only the intended programming (Dane and Schneider, 1998). There are several noted benefits of fidelity of implementation (Snyder et al., 2019) including that high fidelity of implementation is linked to better student achievement (van Dijk et al., 2023). For example, when educators adhere closely to the designed curriculum and instructional methods, students benefit more from the intended learning experiences (e.g., Durlak and Dupre, 2008; Varghese et al., 2021). Further research indicates that positive associations between fidelity of implementation and student outomes are most profound for students who are struggling (e.g., Capin et al., 2022). The link between fidelity and outcomes, particularly for lower performing students, may attributed to consistency and clarity of directions and expectations (Fixsen et al., 2013), which reduces the need for time-consuming set-up and clarification, maximizing time to be devoted to actual instruction and learning.

In addition to the important connections between fidelity and outcomes for students, fidelity of implementation can support school- or district-level decision making (William McKenna and Parenti, 2017) and broadly, teachers' success. When implementation is provided with fidelity, data collected about the effectiveness of a program is accurate, and their analysis can lead to instructional decisions and policy development. Programs with high fidelity yield more reliable data on student progress, which can inform adjustments in instruction (Fixsen et al., 2005). Further, measuring fidelity can be informative for determining PD needs (i.e., coaching) for a school or district (Kingsbery et al., 2025). In addition to student-, school-, and district-, related benefits, fidelity of implementation can also positively impact the educators who are implementing the program. The benefits of fidelity of implementation are positive for the implementers, who become proficient in the specific practices and enhance their skills and confidence. Thus, PD that supports fidelity of implementation can support teachers' instruction and students' performance. Therefore, teachers' confidence increases as a result of improved practices and students' performance (Guskey, 2002, 2003; Snyder et al., 2019; Traga Philippakos et al., 2023). Finally, implementation fidelity supports sustainability within an educational system. When programs are delivered with fidelity, they can consistently provide outcomes and lead to increases in teacher confidence (Cantrell and Callaway, 2008).

In addition to practical and applied implications for student outcomes and district- or school-level decision making, implementation fidelity also has implications for research design and evaluation (Gage et al., 2020) as it can help to explain why a program may have been effective for some but not others. Including measures of fidelity can increase the validity of findings and further support program effectiveness (Kazdin, 2011).

While there are many noted benefits of fidelity of implementation, questions remain.

In several meta-analyses and reviews of research, fidelity is less conclusively tied to promising positive effects of interventions. For example, Suggate (2016) found that inclusion of measures of fidelity in studies of interventions was related to lessened effect sizes. Because of its multiple components (Dane and Schneider, 1998) and the manifold ways in which these components can be captured, studies vary considerably in the degree to which fidelity is reported and its impacts. For example, van Dijk et al. (2023) reviewed 50 reading intervention studies and found fidelity reported through dosage only (64%), adherence and quality (36%), or adherence only (26%). Relatedly, fewer studies within each of these categories demonstrated clear links between fidelity and positive outcomes. Further, from a practical standpoint, there may be barriers to implementing with fidelity such as time or administrative support (Mesa et al., 2024). However, summatively, fidelity remains a powerful tool with positive practical and empirical significance even as questions about the full extent of its benefits and/or for whom and when fidelity matters most, assessing fidelity is critical to fully understanding whether a program is being appropriately implemented, as well as to inform our judgements of general effectiveness and the need for potential improvements.

Present study

The purpose of this study was to explore the challenges educators encountered during the implementation process, with the aim of informing the design of PD and support procedures. An embedded case study design was employed to account for the specific contextual characteristics of the participating schools and district. In addition, the goal was to also consider contextual factors that may affect teachers' instruction. The research questions that guided this investigation were the following:

RQ1. Do teachers implement instruction on multisyllabic reading and spelling with fidelity? Are there differences in students' performance as a result of implementation fidelity?

RQ2. Do teacher self-efficacy and beliefs about the multisyllabic instructional approach change across time?

RQ3. Does student reading, spelling, and motivation to read big words across combinations of syllable types change as a result of instruction?

Methods

Participants and setting

The study took place at suburban-rural schools located in the Southeast of the United States. According to NCES (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch) the district serves 1,626 students in urban, suburban, and rural settings. The study involved groups of students and their teachers located across three schools (two elementary schools that hosted grades 3 to 4 and one middle school that included a fifth grade). The schools were in the same area and at a walking distance from one another. A total of 64 students participated in the study, including 27 third graders, 17 fourth graders, and 30 fifth graders (see Table 1 for student demographic information by grade level). Of the participants, 39% were female and 61% were male. In terms of ethnicity, 67% of the students identified as White, 23% as African American, 5% as Hispanic, 3% as multiracial, and 2% were not known. Regarding educational services, 6% of the students were classified as English Language Learners (ESL), and 16% received special education (SPED) services.

Table 1

Table 1. Student demographics.

There were nine instructional participants, and two of them provided instruction to more than one group of students. Two of the participants were classroom teachers who decided to offer this instruction to all their students in their classroom (grade 3 teacher and grade 5 teacher). The rest of the educators were interventionists who offered instruction in small groups. Within the interventionist group, some were in more of a teaching assistant role, others in an ESOL teaching role, and others in a more traditional interventionist role. Though their roles varied, these participants will collectively be referred to as “teachers”.

Teachers' years of experiences varied (M = 17.56, SD = 11.82, range 2–38) as did their age (M age = 43.56, SD = 14.34, range 23–60), and educational backgrounds (n = 6 teachers with education undergraduate and graduate degrees, e.g., Elementary, SPED, reading specialist, etc. completed or in progress; n = 3 with other educational backgrounds, e.g., associate's degree, some college, BA in Art History). Teachers reported an average of 11.39 years of service in their current schools (SD = 10.23, range 1–32) and an average of 10.39 years of service working with the grade level with whom they are currently working (SD = 8.45, range 2–25). Overall, the majority of the teachers had several years of experience working with elementary learners.

Research design

The study employed an embedded case-study methodology (Yin, 2018). Embedded case studies focus on a phenomenon while dissecting it into various components for analysis. This method examines contextual factors that shape the case, providing richer insights (Yin, 2018). In this study, we examined practices across three neighboring schools that implemented the instructional approach, and each interventionist's implementation was treated as a sub-case (Eisenhardt, 1989). By investigating multiple sub-cases, we attempted to better understand interactions between instructional and contextual components that may affect the overall instruction and implementation within a site, leading to more nuanced conclusions (Creswell, 2013).

Procedures

After consenting to the study, teachers participated in a 2-h PD session that explained syllabification strategies and the specific strategies for this program (see Figure 1 for procedures in stages). The session occurred during the school day, at a PD time arranged by their district personnel. Teachers completed a questionnaire on their confidence and preparation to teach advanced decoding before the session and a quiz that addressed content before and after the PD meeting. Data collection processes began and lasted for a week. Teachers began instruction a week after data collection. There was not a specific time of the day that all teachers across sites met to work with their students and further, small-group instruction was not included in the daily schedules for all participating teachers and students. Thus, there was variability in the number of lessons taught. The study took place for 7 weeks; due to extreme weather conditions, 2 weeks of instruction after students' holiday break were not provided. Table 2 shows the number of lessons addressed for the duration of instruction.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Study methods in stages.

Table 2

Table 2. Lessons taught by instructor and fidelity.

The Big Words program, the focal program in this study, consists of daily lessons across 7 weeks of instruction (see Traga Philippakos et al., 2024, 2025b). Each week focuses on a different overarching concept (e.g., single syllable words and compound words; syllabification approaches with multisyllabic words; prefixes; suffixes; words with prefixes and suffixes; roots). Each lesson contains an identical structure with first an introduction to the lesson, then an explanation of the focus that day, and optional review based on student need, modeling of reading words, guided practice reading words, independent practice reading words, modeling of spelling words, guided practice spelling words, independent practice spelling words, sentence dictation, and finally choral or whisper reading of a meaningful text aligned to state standards for the grade in social studies or science. The program is structured and provides teacher-language with time expectations for the completion of each lesson component [e.g., (1) introduction to the task of reading multisyllabic words (1 min), (2) explanation of the specific day's lesson/goal with (3 min), (3) teacher modeling reading words (3 min)]. The total time per lesson is for 40 min). Emphasis is given on word meaning and morphology, and students are guided to identify word components that derive from other words as well as morphemes (e.g., prefixes) and use syllable types if they cannot identify a word. In that process, they are instructed to be flexible when working with vowel pronunciation and with syllable boundaries/division. Pedagogically, there is a gradual release of responsibility from the teacher to the student with the teacher modeling and students gradually transitioning to independent practice.

Measures

Data were collected from teachers and students. Student data were shared deidentified from the school personnel. In the following section we include the measures collected by teachers and then include student-level data.

Teacher measures

Teachers were interviewed prior to the start of the study and at its completion. Further, they completed a questionnaire at the beginning of the study and a self-efficacy questionnaire. During the study, they completed a log book, recorded students' absences, and completed a mid-point feedback regarding their own and their students' use of the program and their perceived effects of it, as well as the challenges they faced. In addition, they were observed and coached for an average of 3 times per teacher.

Interviews

Interviews at the beginning of the study strived to understand teachers' practices and specific interventions and procedures they used when working with their students. At the end of the study, the goal of the interviews was for teachers to share their perspectives about what worked for them and their students and also offer recommendations and suggestions for revisions of the program's components and content and the PD components.

Quiz before and after the PD

A quiz that consisted of 10 questions was administered to teachers before and after the initial PD. Teachers were asked to independently record their answers to questions that examined syllable types, the process of dividing words, and the determination of parts of a word.

Questionnaire

The initial questionnaire collected teacher demographic information and asked teachers to rate their preparation to teach advanced decoding specifically, not reading in general. Teachers were asked to complete a 15 item scale that asked them to rate their preparation (1 = not at all prepared, 3 = moderately prepared, 5 = Extremely well prepared) to teach advanced decoding strategies (alpha = 0.985; M = 1.08; SD = 0.92). Finally, they were asked to share relevant P they had received prior to the study.

Teacher self-efficacy

Teachers were asked to complete a two-part self-efficacy scale that asked them to select a number from one to six (not at all confident to state their confidence in teaching advanced decoding (strongly disagree, moderately disagree, disagree, agree, moderately agree, strongly agree). This scale consisted of 10 items (alpha = 0.909; M = 4.27, SD = 0.71). The second part asked teachers to rate their confidence in addressing specific morphological components of advanced decoding (e.g., teaching of Greek roots). The second scale consisted of 28 items with 13 items addressing strategies for syllabification (alpha = 0.981; M = 4.58, SD = 0.85), six items addressing Greek and Latin roots (alpha = 0.976; M = 3.55., SD = 1.31), four items addressing enjoyment teaching syllabification strategies (alpha = 0.929; M = 4.30, SD = 0.80), and five items addressing avoidance (alpha = 0.983; M = 2.62, SD = 1.02).

Daily logs

A checklist with all lesson components was shared with each teacher so they could “check off” the lesson components taught and record the date of their instruction. If a lesson component was not checked, teachers were asked to record the reason for this omission or decision not to teach that component.

Mid-point implementation feedback

The purpose of the mid-point feedback was to solicit teachers' comments about what challenges/successes they could observe and detect through their implementation. Thus, the goal was for the professional developers to make adjustments, if needed, to the lesson components and to the provided implementation support. Teachers were asked to share what worked for them and their students, what additional supports they needed, and what was confusing or unclear for them or for their students.

Observations

Teachers were observed on their instruction for two reasons. First, the goal was for the researchers to provide coaching support and examine firsthand how teachers implemented the lessons. The second reason was to examine fidelity and to refine the fidelity checklist that was developed for this work. The initial research request was for the researchers to observe teachers virtually twice a week on consecutive days. Drawing from previous research (e.g., Traga Philippakos et al., 2024, 2025a), the goal was to offer feedback on one day for teachers to apply the feedback immediately the next day. However, district personnel found that the use of video twice a week required substantial teacher time. Thus, we observed each teacher live once and once virtually. The live observations were done by the research assistant who took notes on the lesson's delivery, time, challenges as shared by the teacher, and on students' responses. Unfortunately, the observations were not in consecutive days as we could not pragmatically attend group meetings across two sites at the same time. The research assistants observed teachers and watched the videos independently marking for fidelity. A training occurred prior to video observations between two raters who were not aware of the study's purposes, but who were aware that the focus of the lessons was reading instruction to assure consistency in their responses (ICC = 0.95).

Student measures

In order to answer research questions related to students' academic performance in reading and spelling the measures of CAPTI, TOWRE, TOSREC, and a spelling inventory were conducted. To answer questions on students' motivation a self-efficacy scale designed for the project was administered.

CAPTI

The CAPTI subtests of word recognition and decoding, vocabulary, morphology, and reading efficiency (e.g., Sabatini et al., 2019) were completed in students' small groups. These measures were electronically completed and computer-administered. The time for the completion of CAPTI at pretest was 12 min on average and 7 min at posttest. CAPTI assessments presents reliability coefficients in the acceptable to strong range among upper elementary learners (ranging from 0.67 to 0.93; Sabatini et al., 2019).

TOWRE-2

The Test of Word Reading Efficiency, 2nd Edition (TOWRE-2; Torgesen et al., 2012) measures of Sight Word Efficiency subtest and the Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest were administered. Each subtest takes 45 seconds to administer and students are asked individually to read high frequency and pseudowords quickly and accurately, respectively. Measures of reliability for the TOWRE-2 are sufficiently high (i.e., alternate form and test-retest reliability alphas >0.90).

TOSREC

The Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC; Wagner et al., 2010) was administered to each group of students at the time they would meet for their intervention. Students were provided with 3 min and asked to read sentences and determine if the content of the sentence was true or not. Measures of reliability for the TOSREC are sufficiently high (i.e., alternate form reliability alphas > 0.85).

Spelling inventory

The Words Their Way spelling inventory was administered to small groups of students (Bear et al., 2019). The administration followed the procedures provided by the developers. Thus, learners heard a word, the word was used in a sentence, and finally, they heard the repetition of the word. After five consecutive errors, the discontinue guidance was applied. The Words Their Way spelling inventories demonstrate suitable reliability (internal consistency alphas > 0.90; test-retest alphas >0.70; Sterbinsky, 2007).

Student self-efficacy

A self-efficacy questionnaire was shared with students by their teachers. This was a 30-item Likert scale (zero to 100 range) that asked students to share how confident/sure they felt to complete specific tasks. The scale consisted of four factors: tasks (alpha = 0.947; M = 50.00, SD = 22.73) (e.g., I can understand the meaning of Big words that have prefixes that change the meaning of words), self-regulation (alpha = 0.832; M = 73.05, SD = 23.57) (e.g., I reread Big Words to make corrections when reading), avoidance (alpha = 0.821; 65.00, SD = 31.29) (e.g., I avoid spelling Big Words), and affect (alpha = 0.937; M = 47.32, SD = 33.61) (e.g., Reading Big Words is fun for me).

Student anxiety scale

In addition to the self-efficacy scale, a scale that examined students' anxiety was administered in order to examine whether students' level of anxiety related to reading and spelling of big words declined following instruction. The survey included a total of 14 items. Items were designed following the structure of items of the studies by Haft and Hoeft (2022) and Taboada Barber et al. (2022) that addressed broad reading-related anxiety.

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted with Varimax rotation (Field, 2007) and identified a total of three factors that explained 69.70% of the variance. The factors addressed environmental anxiety with four items (e.g., I get nervous when I have to read Big Words out loud in front of others) (alpha = 0.851), five items addressed classroom application anxiety (e.g., I get nervous reading books that have Big Words) (alpha = 0.855), and five items addressed spelling anxiety (I get nervous when I need to spell Big Words I have not seen before) (alpha = 0.837).

Data analysis

Analysis of teacher data sources

Teacher interview

Interviews were analyzed by examining patterns of responses per question since a structured protocol was used. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. The analysis examined what teachers identified as helpful to their instruction, what was confusing, and what they needed additional support on. Further, patterns of responses were examined to determine teacher's impressions of the initial PD and the coaching components. Since a structured protocol was used, codes were developed using constant comparative analysis (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Axial coding was then utilized to identify the themes across what teachers identified as helpful, confusing, and what could be revised.

Questionnaire and quiz before and after the PD

Responses on the questionnaire showed that five teachers (55%) had received some PD and four (45%) shared that they had received no PD. The ones who had received some form of PD referred to sessions provided by the state (n = 1), the district (n = 1), and the school on a specific program (n = 3). Among those who received PD, four out of five (80%) judged it to be helpful and clear, whereas one participant felt it did not adequately address upper elementary syllabification strategies, focusing more on early elementary decoding.

Regarding responses to the quiz before and after the in-person PD, the total number of correct responses was recorded, and a paired samples t-test and standardized mean difference effect sizes (i.e., Cohen's d) examined teachers' growth across time in their knowledge and understanding of syllabification components and processes.

Observations for teacher fidelity

A fidelity checklist was used to record the percent (%) of fidelity per teacher. One of the researchers met with two paid raters who were not aware of the purposes of the study and offered them training on the checklist. Training utilized videos from previous projects. Their interrater reliability was 91%. In addition, to examine whether differences in reading performance could be explained by fidelity of implementation, group size, and number of lessons, we grouped teachers by the number of lessons taught, by fidelity, and whether instruction was for their entire class or small groups. Thus, we examined students' performance for teachers who had high fidelity (above 80%) and taught more lessons (at least more than 20 to address morphology and meaning through suffixes and prefixes) and taught in small-groups or the whole class. A paired samples t-test was utilized, and a Bonferroni correction was applied to account for multiple testing.

Teacher self-efficacy (SE)

A paired samples t-test was employed to examine changes in teachers' overall SE and SE as related to strategies, instruction on roots, enjoyment, and avoidance from pretest to posttest. Standardized mean difference effect sizes (i.e., Cohen's d) were also provided. Given the small number of teachers (n = 9), we also conducted Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, a non-parametric alternative that makes fewer assumptions about the distribution of the data (e.g., normality). Results for the Wilcoxon tests were consistent with the paired t-tests, supporting the robustness of the findings. For consistency with the student-level analyses and to allow for the reporting of means and standard deviations, we present results for the paired t-tests.

Analysis of student measures

Students' academic performance

To respond to the first research question that examined whether students' reading performance changed as an effect of instruction, a paired samples t-test was conducted with the Bonferroni correction applied. Standardized mean difference effect sizes (i.e., Cohen's d) were also computed to better understand changes from pretest to posttest. Changes were examined on CAPTI subtests (word recognition, vocabulary, morphology, efficiency), TOWRE subtests (sight words and pseudowords), the TOWRE Composite score, TOSREC raw and index scores, and the raw spelling scores.

Student self-efficacy and anxiety

A paired samples t-test was conducted on the different factors to examine whether there was a change from pretest to posttest on the self-efficacy and anxiety factors. Further, a paired samples t-test examined performance on the overall scales for self-efficacy and anxiety. Standardized mean difference effect sizes (i.e., Cohen's d) were also computed.

Results

In the following section, we provide findings by research question.

Teacher fidelity

In order to address the first research question, (Do teachers implement the instruction with fidelity to the instructional activities and principles of syllabification? Are there differences on students' performance as a result of implementation fidelity?) we examined teachers' fidelity of implementation and the relationships between fidelity and student outcomes.

There was variability in teachers' fidelity of implementation, and rates of fidelity ranged from 73% to 100%. An examination of paired samples t-tests (unadjusted p-values reported; Bonferroni adjusted alpha level is 0.05/14 = 0.004) for the group of teachers who had high fidelity, taught in small groups, and taught more lessons revealed statistically significant differences for word recognition (t₍₁₉₎ = −2.50, p = 0.002, Cohen's d = 0.56), reading efficiency (t₍₁₉₎ = −3.07, p = 0.006, Cohen's d = 0.69), TOSREC raw (t₍₁₉₎ = −5. 31, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.19), and spelling (t₍₁₉₎ = −4.06, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.91). There was no statistically significant difference for the high fidelity, small group, with fewer lessons (p > 0.05 for the CAPTI measures (word recognition (t₍₈₎ = −2.10, p = 0.07, Cohen's d = 0.70; vocabulary (t₍₈₎ = −2.13, p = 0.07, Cohen's d = 0.71); for morphology (t₍₈₎ = −0.03, p = 0.97, Cohen's d = 0.01); for reading efficiency (t₍₈₎ = −1.15, p = 0.28, Cohen's d = 0.38), for TOWRE sight words (t₍₈₎ = −0.16, p = 0.87, Cohen's d = 0.05); or TOWRE pseudowords (t₍₈₎ = −1.15, p = 0.28, Cohen's d = 0.38); or for TOSREC (t₍₈₎ = −2.56, p = 0.04, Cohen's d = 0.85), but there was for spelling (t₍₈₎ = −2.59, p = 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.86). Perhaps because the instructors were not able to cover sufficient content that examined morphology and vocabulary, such differences were not detected. However, there were differences on spelling.

For the group that taught with high fidelity, as a whole class, covering more lessons, statistically significant differences were found for vocabulary (t₍₁₀₎ = −4.61, p = 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.39) and spelling (t₍₁₀₎ = −2.90, p = 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.87). An examination of high fidelity, taught in a whole group that covered fewer lessons showed significance in spelling (t₍₁₃₎ = −5.36, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.43). Finally, low fidelity, for small groups, and fewer lessons showed statistical significance in vocabulary (t₍₈₎ = −4.9, p = 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.63), on reading efficiency (t₍₉₎ = −3.37, p = 0.008, Cohen's d = 1.07); this suggests that perhaps there was low fidelity and fewer lessons covered because the instructors spent more time to elaborate on words and their meaning. See Table 3 for means and standard deviations.

Table 3

Table 3. Results by teacher fidelity, grouping, and number of lessons.

Teacher knowledge and beliefs

In order to address the second research question (Do teacher self-efficacy and beliefs about the multisyllabic instructional approach change?), we examined teachers' quiz and self-efficacy survey results as well as their interviews and feedback surveys.

Teachers' quiz

Teachers' knowledge grew as a result of the PD on their responses about principles of syllabification pretest M = 5.89 (SD = 2.52); posttest M = 9.22 (SD = 1.20) resulting in a statistically significant difference: t₍₈₎ = −6.32, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 2.09. The session supported their understanding of the procedures used for syllabification and the emphasis of this work on morphology and meaning.

Teacher self-efficacy

The results of the paired samples t-test found no statistically significant differences in teachers' reading self-efficacy (p > 0.25) (See Table 4). Further, regarding self-efficacy in multisyllabic instruction, no significance was detected in confidence (p = 0.51, Cohen's d = 0.23), strategies (p = 0.06, Cohen's d = 0.72), Greek and Latin roots (p = 0.13, Cohen's d = 0.56), enjoyment (p = 0.41, Cohen's d = 0.29), or avoidance (p = 0.09, Cohen's d = −0.65). An examination of means revealed an increase from pretest to posttest on all factors and a decrease in avoidance. Further, Cohen's d standardized mean difference effect sizes indicated large effects for Greek and Latin roots (d = 0.56), avoidance (d = −0.65), and strategies (d = 0.72).

Table 4

Table 4. Teacher self-efficacy.

Mid-point feedback

Teachers were able to reflect on challenges and successes both on their implementation and on the program as a resource for instructional delivery.

Student performance

Overall, teachers identified growth in students' word recognition, spelling, and morphology. Some teachers also commented on students' confidence and willingness to attempt to read unknown words. Teachers as a group shared variability in students' performance and responsiveness to instruction. For instance, three teachers (33.3%) shared that they saw marked improvements in spelling (e.g., “spelling has greatly improved”) and two teachers (22.2%) noted increases in students' knowledge of morphology and vocabulary (e.g., “my students are understanding prefixes, meaning, and origin”; another teacher: “The children understand the different types of syllables. This has been beneficial.”); similarly, others commented on growth in specific ways (e.g., “I feel it is helping more with reading than spelling”).

Manual and lessons

Regarding challenges with the resources, teachers commented on the length of the lessons. Some of the teachers worried the length of the lessons did not allow them to hold students' attention (n = 5, 55.6%). They also shared that particular words and dictated sentences were too difficult for their students (n = 3, 33.3%). One of the teachers was concerned that the Lexile level of those words was more demanding than what their students could do, “the use of words that are above their grade/Lexile levels [is challenging].”

Two of the teachers commented on the language of the manual that was occasionally too formal while they also found that the lessons did not allow for the student input and interaction with teachers and peers. As one of the teachers shared, “there is very little built into the structure of the lessons that allows for student input or creation of ideas.”

Professional development and coaching

Teachers found that the provision of support was helpful. Four of the teachers suggested that the content, format, and processes associated with the feedback were beneficial to improve instruction. As one of the teachers explained, “it helps to clarify things that I then use for the next lesson.” Four teachers also commented on the consistency of video recording that helped them work on a routine (e.g., “Recording once a week works well. Keeping to a predictable routine has worked well.”).

However, some challenges were also identified. One of the teachers commented on the tone of the feedback which may have been the result of the medium used. One of the teachers explained, “Email is easy but tone and meaning can often not be properly conveyed.” One teacher also commented on the challenges of preparing and uploading a video (“Time and technology are always a struggle”). Responses suggested a possible need for added technological support for teachers and more individualized approaches to communicating content.

Post interviews

Interviews were conducted with eight of the participating teachers. Teachers post responses paralleled the responses in the midpoint feedback, and extended them in some ways.

Student performance and strategy use

All eight teachers shared positive attributes about the program in terms of supporting their students. One teacher noted that her students “certainly understood that a syllable needs a vowel… that was something that the students walked away understanding.” Another teacher shared that their students obtained “…a better understanding of the prefixes and suffixes and the reason why we have those, their origin, and what they mean in the word. That seemed to really turn on a light for the kids.”

Teachers also noticed that students utilized the taught strategies used in other contexts. One of the teachers shared, “I noticed it a few weeks into exposing them to this…when we would come across words in math or science or with social studies where they need to [read or spell] multisyllabic words, I would say, all right, we are going to chunk it up just like we do in [Big Words lessons] and I would see them being able to do this more independently.” Another teacher also noted students' improvement and willingness to read words, “they were quicker to use the strategy with [reading] words in isolation.” One of the participants, though, identified the need to remind students of the strategy so they would apply it, indicating the importance of consistency in the use of a strategy for it to become a skill, “There were times I would have to remind them, like, ‘Oh that's a really big word. What do we know about what to do with big words?”

Teachers found that the use of the strategies had a direct effect on reading while spelling required more time and attention. A teacher stated, “Pretty much everyone used the strategy. I think the spelling is easier than the reading for using the strategy.” Another teacher explained that students did use the strategy for spelling, but they required more guidance. Overall, in spelling, half of the teachers shared that students used the strategy consistently and two shared that they needed reminders to use it when spelling. One teacher explained that students consistently used the strategy for reading and spelling when encountering unknown words while reading. Broadly, data revealed positive changes in students' multisyllabic reading and spelling and independent application of strategies based on participation with the program, with challenges and some variability across students on consistency of application in spelling and in contexts other than the group lessons.

Instructional approach

Teachers commented positively on the instructional sequence and the consistency of instruction. For instance, one teacher shared, “…just that repetitiveness of everyday, like, I absolutely loved. I really liked the program.” Another stated,

“Well, I think the fact that the design of it felt very predictable, and followed the same pattern, it made it easier...like, once I got into the rhythm of what a typical lesson looks like, then I didn't feel like I was putting as much time preparing for the lessons. It did get easier over time. That was helpful.”

Broadly, teachers appreciated the structure of the lessons and the repetitiveness as it made the lessons more predictable for them as teachers. Interviewees shared that over time, the lessons became more manageable, moved quicker, and were generally easier for them, suggesting increases in competence and self-efficacy across time.

Challenges with time

One of the challenges that the majority of the teachers identified was time. Six of the eight interviewed teachers (75%) discussed time as a barrier to their success. The time requirement for the lessons and the allotted time they had with students to engage in a lesson were often mismatched. Two teachers explained that even though their schedule was for 45 min of intervention, they only had 30–35 min,

“I have a 45-min block of time and really that translates to about 30 to 35 min after the transition, getting them to my room and walking them back to their main classroom. We really only had 35 at most to go over that day's lesson and we could really only do that. We didn't have a whole lot of exposure to the book or discussion of the book.”

Challenges with lessons

Teachers also shared challenges associated with the lesson contents and vocabulary. Specifically, three teachers (37.5%) shared that some of the lessons contained too much information (e.g., “Sometimes, some of the lessons, there was just too much being introduced. One example was [a particular prefix lesson] and there were like five prefixes. They all had the same type of meaning, but for the kids that I work with, especially third grade, it was just too much”).

Syllables with a vowel combination pattern (“vowel teams”) were a particular point that some teachers shared would be an area for extended exploration. One teacher explained that it would be helpful to have a list of all vowel teams for the tutor to know and that more time on vowel teams was needed.

“I understand the approaches to try to support older students who are lacking some of the code skills to read big words, but I think I would add more lessons so that I could focus on things like vowel teams. You would need to go deeper with them to give them a stronger foundation.”

Two teachers remarked on the difficulty associated with certain target words used in the lessons with a one of them explaining, “A lot of the words that were chosen, I didn't understand what they were. The kids had a hard time. I'm in third grade, so some of them were challenging words to understand.” These difficulties arose in six interviews (75%) and particularly were a focus point with teachers who worked with third graders.

Professional development and coaching

It should be noted that teachers were surprised and seemed impressed that their feedback was asked and valued. One teacher said, “I'm really impressed with you all. I think that this is definitely something that students will benefit from, teachers as well. Just continuing to ask for our feedback and being open to it, I think that's really impressive. The concept is great; the tweaking is necessary.”

On the PD, prior to teachers' implementation, participants shared that at the end of the session, they had felt prepared, but they did not have the same readiness when they began the implementation. Thus, they suggested more time for them to practice in the meetings with some additional practice time to develop some comfort with the process and tasks. One of the teachers said, “I found it useful that [we saw] a lesson, but I think it would also benefit us if we could do the [whole] lesson. It was one thing watching somebody do it and do it well. Then, when we finally did it, it just felt really foreign.” Teachers suggested the use of additional resources to support their readiness such as videos of the lessons in real contexts (n = 5). They also required more time to meet and practice.

Teachers commented on the predictable format and structure that supported them with implementation. One of the teachers explained, “I was very overwhelmed in the beginning, but it wasn't as bad as I was making it out. It just sounded like a whole lot. Once you get into it, you know, the kids did get stuff out of it. They got more out of it than I thought they might.”

Regarding the written feedback, all teachers were positive about the feedback received and shared how it supported them in lessons. One of the teachers explained, “I felt like when I got feedback, I understood what people wanted me to change and I thought I could understand it.” Another teacher shared,

“I'm not sure how other people felt about it but for me, I think that was the best way to work it. Once a week was good for me. I think getting it in an email form is definitely the most valuable way, at least for me, because I'm someone that needs to read information.”

Challenges with feedback were also shared that related to logistics. For instance, two teachers commented on the uploading process and the process of recording and uploading. One teacher shared other methods that may have been more beneficial for her (rather than written, emailed feedback; e.g., “a consultation, because then I could hear directly from you.”).

Student outcomes

In order to address the third research question (Does student reading, spelling, and motivation to read big words across combinations of syllable types change as a result of instruction?), we examined reading performance overall across the three grade levels. Unadjusted p-values are reported in the text, and the Bonferroni correction was applied (i.e., 05/14 = 0.004).

Results for reading performance across all grades are presented in Table 5. Learners showed statistically significant improvement from pretest to posttest in CAPTI Word Recognition (t₍₆₂₎ = −2.75, p = 0.008, Cohen's d = 0.35), CAPTI Vocabulary (t₍₆₂₎ = −5.12, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.65), CAPTI Morphology (t₍₆₁₎ = −2.4, p = 0.02, Cohen's d = 0.3), CAPTI Reading Efficiency (t₍₆₃₎ = −4.01, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.50), TOWRE Sight Words raw (t₍₆₂₎ = −2.78, p = 0.007, Cohen's d = 0.35), TOWRE Pseudowords raw (t₍₆₂₎ = −4.28, p = < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.54), TOWRE Pseudowords Scaled (t₍₆₂₎ = −2.06, p = 0.044, Cohen's d = 0.26), TOSREC raw (t₍₆₃₎ = −6.13, p = < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.77), and Spelling (t₍₆₃₎ = −7.96, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.00). Moreover, many of these displayed substantial effect sizes (i.e., Cohen's d > 0.50). In addition, none of the measures showed a decrease from pretest to posttest, except for TOSREC Index, which was minimal (Cohen's d = −0.04).

Table 5

Table 5. Student reading and spelling performance across grades 3, 4, and 5.

Student self-efficacy

Results with the Bonferroni correction applied (0.05/4 = 0.013) found statistically significant difference for students' self-efficacy on tasks (t₍₆₃₎ = −4.68, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.59) and on affect (t₍₆₃₎ = −2.68, p = 0.009, Cohen's d = 0.33), but not on self-regulation (t₍₆₃₎ = −2.49, p = 0.015, Cohen's d = 0.31) or avoidance (t₍₆₃₎ = 0.371, p = 0.71, Cohen's d = 0.05). See Table 6 for means and standard deviations.

Table 6

Table 6. Overall student self efficacy and anxiety.

Student anxiety

The analysis for all grades found that there was no statistically significant difference in environmental anxiety (t₍₆₃₎ = 1.06, p = 0.290, Cohen's d = 0.13) or application anxiety (t₍₆₃₎ = −2.80, p = 0.78, Cohen's d = 0.03) from pretest to posttest; however, there were statistically significant differences in spelling anxiety (t₍₆₃₎ = 2.42, p = 0.01, Cohen's d = −0.30) with students' anxiety to spell Big Words decreasing (See Table 4 for overall means).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to better understand the challenges instructors faced during implementation to consider professional development and teacher-supports to better support their implementation using an embedded case study design to account for the unique characteristics of the schools and district. Furthermore, the goal was to examine effects of instruction on students' academic performance. Finally, we wanted to identify factors that affected teachers' implementation fidelity and students' performance.

This study shows promise and adds to the literature on a less-explored area within the body of research on literacy teaching and learning: fidelity of implementation in interventions designed for upper elementary learners. Even though the results are not conclusive as we did not use an experimental design, they do offer considerations for future research and parameters for future design plans. In the next section, we comment on the findings addressing: (1) the program's impacts on students' performance and perceptions, (2) the experiences of teachers who engaged in the program's PD and instruction, and (3) affordances and challenges that could result to future revision.

Measuring big words' effects on student outcomes

The findings indicate broadly that there were improvements in students' reading performance and spelling performance across a number of measures. In particular, analyses suggested increases in a variety of outcomes across grade levels including word recognition, vocabulary, morphology, reading efficiency, sight word reading, pseudoword reading, comprehension, and spelling to varying, but significant degrees. Most notably, when examining results at individual grade levels, spelling improved consistently and to a greater magnitude than most other measures. Considering the synchrony between reading and spelling (e.g., Moll et al., 2014; Rapp and Lipka, 2011) and research documenting cross-domain benefits (e.g., spelling instruction theoretically begets improvements in decoding and vice versa: e.g., Conrad, 2008), it was anticipated that growth in one domain would result in the other (e.g., Moats, 2005); however, it should be noted that spelling is often deemed more challenging than reading (Bosman and Van Orden, 1997) as it requires generative processes rather than receptive ones and word spellings are more unpredictable in English compared to reading (Caravolas et al., 2001). That said, research suggests that the relationship between students' reading and spelling may be dependent on the developmental level and orthography (e.g., Georgiou et al., 2020; Vaessen and Blomert, 2013). Teachers' perceptions of students' performance and growth also referred to spelling as a particular area of growth.

Both reading and spelling, particularly in upper elementary grades and beyond, are notably influenced by students' knowledge of morphology (e.g., Levesque et al., 2021), underscoring the rationale for incorporating building students' morphological understandings alongside flexible syllabification approaches to read and spell big words. In studies employing flexible multisyllabic decoding strategies, findings are similarly mixed, wherein significant differences are detected for some measures but not others when comparing intervention to control (e.g., Filderman and Toste, 2022; Vadasy et al., 2006). In the context of the current study, however, it is possible that teacher-level differences (e.g., teacher efficacy, teacher fidelity, pacing of lessons, and frequency of instruction), as well as child-level differences (e.g., absences), may also play a role in diminishing overall effects. The sample size of the current study does not allow for multi-level analysis to determine the role of such effects. Grouping considerations and fidelity of implementation are important to consider, but the data we have with the present number of participants and the specific design used can only allow us to comment but not draw conclusions. Indeed, fidelity results in higher performance, but some of the teachers who had lower fidelity had higher increases in students' vocabulary. Perhaps the fact that they spent more time explaining the words to their students had an effect. Similarly, considering the comments by third grade teachers on the types of words included (teachers commented on the words being too difficult for their students and that we should have used more third-grade words or modified the sentences for third graders), the lack of fidelity but improvements on vocabulary and morphology may show teachers' responsiveness to students' needs to better understand the words. Overall, findings suggest that following participation in the Big Words program, students improved in a variety of measures but the skills in which there was improvement and the effect sizes associated with these measures varied.

In addition to changes to students' reading and spelling performance to varying degrees, there were changes to students' self-efficacy in syllabification processes and use of strategies to support their encoding and decoding of multisyllabic words and further, their anxiety around multisyllabic word reading. Findings suggest that students' confidence grew and negative feelings dissipated following participation in BIG WORDS for the whole group. In particular, certain subscales from the self-efficacy measure were significantly different following the program. There was significant change to students' self-efficacy for tasks (e.g., how efficacious they feel engaging in reading and spelling words and using the strategies), affect (i.e., how enjoyable reading and spelling big words is), and self-regulation (i.e., the degree to which students will use regulatory processes to be successful with reading and spelling multisyllabic words). Overall, these results show that students' perceptions of their abilities, their enjoyment, and their use of various strategies and processes to be successful increased; their avoidance also declined from pre to post. As students move into upper elementary grades, the majority of new words they encounter are multisyllabic (Kearns et al., 2016). Robust linkages between self-efficacy and ability suggest that students need support to increase their abilities in reading and spelling as well as self-efficacy. Moreover, research emphasizes the importance of employing particular approaches, such as a gradual release of responsibility, structured lessons, and goal setting, playing crucial roles in supporting the development of both ability and self-efficacy (e.g., Schunk and Zimmerman, 2007). Relatedly research suggests that interventions and instruction are often more effective when they address students' motivations, attitudes, and beliefs (e.g., Cho et al., 2019; Toste et al., 2019). Thus, theoretically, the use of program-specific characteristics such as gradual release of responsibility, a predictable and repetitive lesson structure, and goal-setting, all of which are inherent to the Big Words approach, may have supported students in increasing their self-efficacy.

Similar to self-efficacy, anxiety is commonly connected to reading and spelling, and in particular, researchers have sought to understand the specific mechanisms underlying anxiety that is specific to reading and writing contexts, and not just generalized (e.g., Chung et al., 2023; McArthur et al., 2022). Generally, anxiety related to reading poses a barrier to student success. However, unlike the relationship between ability and self-efficacy, the connection between ability and anxiety may be unidirectional. For example, McArthur et al. (2022) suggested that poor reading ability led to anxiety and not the other way around. Therefore, in the context of the current study, it is perhaps unsurprising that students' spelling anxiety decreased significantly while other aspects of anxiety remained unchanged, given that spelling was the area with the most consistent and highest magnitude increases across grade levels.

Understanding teachers' experiences with big words

Implementation fidelity, defined as the degree to which teachers adhere to prescribed instructional methods, plays a critical role in the effectiveness of educational interventions. There was variability in teachers' fidelity and pace/frequency of lesson completion or dosage—some teachers only completed 14 lessons with their students, while others completed 24 or 25 lessons. There was a range of fidelity, with rates varying from 73 to 100%. This means that some students only received content related to syllabification while others learned syllabification approaches as well as morphological-analysis approaches using prefixes and suffixes. For instance, teachers who maintained high fidelity—particularly in small group settings and when covering more lessons—reported significant improvements in student outcomes, such as enhanced word recognition and spelling skills.

Students' differential exposure to lesson content and opportunities to practice and engage with the strategies might have led to differences in post-test performance as evidenced by differences in the performance for those who had more lessons and were taught with high fidelity. Contextual differences (i.e., how often teachers had scheduled time with students) as well as individual differences (i.e., how quickly teachers were able to complete lessons) led to vastly different experiences with the program (e.g., also see Vadasy et al., 2006; Goodwin et al., 2021). Several studies have documented the ways in which differences in fidelity impact uptake and efficacy of an intervention (e.g., Benner et al., 2011; Fogarty et al., 2014; Traga Philippakos and MacArthur, 2021). The findings from this study align with existing literature that emphasizes the positive correlation between implementation fidelity and student achievement (Durlak and Dupre, 2008).

That said, the relationship between fidelity and outcomes likely depends on how fidelity is conceptualized and operationalized (O'Donnell, 2008; van Dijk et al., 2023). In our study, we counted as fidelity of implementation instruction of core principles of instruction for decoding and encoding with commentary on morphology and vocabulary. Teachers' fidelity of implementation changed across time and improved across time for seven of the nine participating teachers with almost all of them reaching 100% fidelity after their third observation and coaching feedback.

An examination of the patterns of responses indicated that those who had higher fidelity had taught more lessons (and had shown improvement on their fidelity). Further, it seems that students had performed better, possibly because they were exposed to more content. An examination of the daily logs of those instructors with lower fidelity (in combination with responses in the interviews) showed challenges with time. Specifically, instructors either taught for less time during the intervention time (due to students arriving late to their group meeting) or the group was meeting at the end of the day and students were eager to leave. Additionally, low fidelity indicated challenges some instructors had managing the group or following the lessons (lack of time to adequately prepare for the lesson). Overall, instructional fidelity was affected by the amount of time available, instructional grouping, lesson pacing, content difficulty, and the number of lessons taught. Teachers who were able to teach more lessons, had smaller groups, and had sufficient time tended to see the best student outcomes, especially in decoding, vocabulary, and spelling. Challenges with time and content overload were consistent barriers that limited fidelity.

Positively, teachers' knowledge of concepts associated with the program increased through participating in the program PD. Teacher self-efficacy, despite differences not being statistically significant, did increase following participation in Big Words, and similarly increased across time. Teacher self-efficacy is linked with a number of factors including wellbeing and student factors like motivation and achievement (Zee and Koomen, 2016). Instructional interventions often work to support increases in teachers' self-efficacy, however, research suggests that interventions and PD that are multicomponential and specifically include opportunities for embedded mastery experiences (see also Guskey, 2002), focused regular observations, and reflective practices may yield greater impact compared to other types of PD interventions (e.g., Kretlow and Bartholomew, 2010; McMaster et al., 2021; Tschannen-Moran and McMaster, 2009; Traga Philippakos, 2020; McMaster et al., 2021). In the current study, teachers were provided with instructional content, modeling, opportunities for practice, and coaching through emailed feedback. Because feedback was communicated through email, rather than in direct consultation or in-the-moment coaching (i.e., co-teaching or bug-in-ear coaching), effects may not have been as pronounced thus more sessions were needed for change to occur in practice. Further, because the feedback required teachers to upload videos and coaching to be provided in a timely manner, there were sometimes delays in the time of the feedback (if a video was not uploaded in time for it to be watched). Timely feedback may result in immediate changes in teachers' instruction (see Traga Philippakos and Voggt, 2021; Traga Philippakos et al., 2023; Traga Philippakos, 2019). However, technology can be a challenge. Further, trust in the coach requires time for it to be established.

We also saw variations in teachers' perceptions of the Big Words program and the PD. Largely, teachers' overall experiences were positive. They shared a variety of successes and benefits related to the program in midpoint surveys and end-of-project interviews. Teachers were quick to address the difficulties with the program as well and share contextual and programmatic challenges. In order to mitigate such challenges to increase teachers' (and, as a result, students') success, it is important to first understand the ways in which teachers differentially experienced the program.

Unique to the study is the fact that teachers reflected a variety of roles within their schools. Among the participants were general education classroom teachers, reading specialists and interventionists, ESOL teachers, and teaching assistants who provided additional reading support. Research shows that teacher's knowledge, practices, and beliefs vary considerably (Fives and Buehl, 2008; Graham et al., 2012), this is likely more pronounced with teachers who engage in varied roles, have differing expertise, and varied experiences and educational backgrounds. Anecdotally, based on the final interviews, teachers (n = 2) in general education classrooms seemed largely more positive about their experiences with the program compared with interventionists. These differing perceptions and variable experiences engaging with the program may derive from differences in roles but also may derive from other contextual factors including job expectations. It is important to note that while teachers offered positive feedback across the board, each one expressed various challenges with the implementation of the program and all offered constructive feedback on aspects of the program that they found to be less effective.

However, several barriers to achieving high fidelity were identified. One significant obstacle was time constraints. Many teachers noted a mismatch between the length of the lessons and the actual instructional time available. For example, although their schedules allocated 45 min for intervention, they often found themselves with only 30 to 35 min of effective teaching time due to transitions and other logistical challenges. Insufficient instructional time can limit teachers' ability to implement programs effectively, and it is out of teacher control.

Finally, while the initial PD provided some valuable support, teachers expressed a desire for ongoing guidance and practice. They suggested that more opportunities for collaborative rehearsals and discussions about instructional strategies could enhance their confidence and capacity to implement lessons with fidelity. This aligns with research that underscores the significance of sustained PD and support for teachers as a means to improve fidelity and, consequently, student outcomes (Desimone, 2009; Parsons et al., 2019; Traga Philippakos, 2020).

Potential adaptations to meet the needs of teachers and students

As evidenced by the results of the study, the Big Words program can positively impact students' outcomes and teachers' self-efficacy and knowledge, and is viewed in a largely positive light by participating teachers. That said, as mentioned, teachers provided considerable suggestions for refinements to meet their needs and the needs of their students which should be considered both in terms of situating the results of the study and for future use of the program.

Teachers found that the lessons were long. Teachers in third grade asked for fewer words to practice and for simpler words. Teachers in grades four and five did not comment as frequently on the types of words used, but they also asked for less tasks for student practice. There were certain topics or aspects that teachers wanted greater depth in exploration to better support students with these more challenging parts as they found they were not confident on their knowledge themselves (i.e., vowel team syllables and suffixes). Some teachers seemed to view the repetitive nature of the lessons positively while others found it unnecessary; most teachers found the lessons to be lengthy. For some of the teachers who met at the end of the day, it was a challenge to complete the dictation and reading of the book as students needed to return to their classroom for dismissal. For future iterations and continued use of the program, considerations for the length of the lessons should be taken. This could be addressed in several ways: (1) providing more intensive support to aid teachers in their rate of delivery, (2) removing or shortening sections of the lesson to decrease the overall length, and/or (3) creating opportunities and pathways for teachers to adapt the lessons to their needs (e.g., if students demonstrate understanding of a concept provide less items for practice to proceed with book reading), (4) considering application tasks as part of Core instruction.

Examining ways in which to involve teachers in co-design or modification of programs, with considerable support, has proved to be a worthwhile endeavor in the literature (e.g., Bogaerds-Hazenberg et al., 2019). Thus, the seeking of teacher feedback throughout their participation in the BIG WORDS program (following observations, at the mid-point, in the final interview) supports their professional identities, leverages their expertise and experiences, and supports program refinement in dynamic and authentic ways. Teachers did appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback and for their experiences to be heard and valued.

Limitations and implications for research and practice

There are several limitations that are important to note when interpreting the results of this study. One rather important limitation is the relatively low fidelity and dosage rates. The intervention, by design, includes a preparation/review week of lessons, followed by 8 weeks of content including, in sequence, syllabification, prefixes, suffixes, and Greek and Latin roots. Teachers ranged in number of lessons completed from 14 (reaching the second week of instruction) to 25 (reaching the fifth week of instruction). This, of course, may limit the success of the program given that it was not delivered in full. Relatedly, teachers' fidelity ranged considerably. While several teachers demonstrated consistently high fidelity, others demonstrated relatively low or variable fidelity. It should be noted that multiple teachers, especially those who implemented the program at the end of the day, persistently skipped the portion of the lesson in which students applied content to more authentic contexts (i.e., reading from a book). Again, the wide variability may have deleterious implications for the program's ultimate success as teachers were somewhat inconsistent with their fidelity and multiple teachers omitted important parts of the lessons.

Another limitation is the small sample size. Only nine teachers participated in the study and while many implications can be drawn from the results, it is difficult to understand the various impacts that teacher differences may have had on students' performance and the success of the program. Teachers varied in their years of experience, educational backgrounds, and instructional roles. Given this variability, we took several steps to account for individual differences in our analysis. First, we grouped teachers based on key instructional variables—such as fidelity of implementation, number of lessons taught, and instructional format to examine patterns in student outcomes. These groupings allowed us to explore how contextual and instructional factors, rather than individual characteristics alone, may have shaped student performance. Second, we employed an embedded case study design. This approach enabled us to qualitatively examine how contextual and individual differences influenced instructional delivery and outcomes. While we did not statistically control for teacher-level covariates due to the small sample size, our mixed-methods design allowed us to triangulate quantitative findings with qualitative data (e.g., interviews, observations, and feedback) to better understand the role of teacher variability. We encourage cautious interpretation of the teacher-level statistical findings and recommend that future studies with larger samples are needed to confirm these results and allow for more robust statistical modeling. Further, even though we were able to report differences on students' performance based on fidelity of implementation, we did not systematically examine the factors that might have affected fidelity and may be contextual (e.g., scheduling of intervention times) and out of teachers' control. Future research could specifically examine factors that affect implementation fidelity and should be considered in interventions' implementation and in implementation fidelity. Finally, this work does not include a control group; thus, we cannot compare the effects of this work with another program. Future research could consider matched pairs experimental designs.

This study, despite the limitations, has important implications for research. While great impetus, scholarly interest, and policy initiatives focus on literacy, the focus is often on beginning reading in the early primary grades with less focus on upper elementary students. This study adds to the smaller literature base exploring potential programs for upper elementary learners and demonstrates, through mixed methods analyses and an embedded case study design, the ways in which this program positively impacted students' performance, self-efficacy, and anxiety toward reading and spelling. The study also offers important insights about teachers—particularly their fidelity to implementation and the challenges associated with time and pacing. This study raises important questions which can inform future research around the ways in which teacher differences may impact implementation and student outcomes. This study also yields insights on the feasibility of such programs in real contexts which also warrants future exploration in other settings.

In addition to research-based implications, this study provides important insight into literacy programming that is designed for upper elementary readers. Despite inconsistent statistical significance, students participating in the Big Words program improved in a variety of outcomes. Despite the challenges associated with fidelity and pace/frequency of instruction, improvements were detected suggesting that the program has promise.

Conclusion

Instruction in multisyllabic words is crucial for upper elementary students, as it significantly supports vocabulary development, enhances decoding abilities, improves reading comprehension, and contributes to overall academic achievement. Educators play a pivotal role in facilitating this instruction by comprehensively understanding syllable types, integrating word study methodologies, utilizing contextual clues, employing engaging pedagogical strategies, and conducting ongoing assessments. By equipping students with the requisite skills to navigate multisyllabic words, educators can enhance their confidence and competence as readers, thereby positioning them for success throughout their academic trajectories.

This study underscores the critical role of fidelity of implementation revealing that variability in teachers‘ adherence to prescribed instructional methods significantly impacted student outcomes. While the program demonstrated promise, with notable improvements in students' reading and spelling performance, the differences in fidelity suggest that consistent and comprehensive implementation is essential for maximizing these benefits (Durlak and Dupre, 2008). However, it is important to also consider what modifications could have a positive impact on learning or may affect the integrity of the approach. Most importantly, the findings highlight the necessity for ongoing PD that provides continuous support and opportunities for collaborative practice. Teachers expressed a desire for more sustained guidance, indicating that regular feedback and coaching could enhance their confidence and effectiveness in implementing the program. This emphasis on embedded, adaptive PD is crucial for fostering high fidelity and ultimately improving student performance in literacy. Future research should explore the effects of structured, ongoing PD on both fidelity and student outcomes to further refine interventions in upper elementary education.

Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because the authors are conducting additional analysis. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by University of Tennessee Institutional Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants' legal guardians/next of kin.

Author contributions

ZT: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MQ: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. LR: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. RP: Writing – review & editing. AD: Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. The research reported here supported by the Reading Reimagined program of the Advanced Education Research and Development Fund (AERDF). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of Reading Reimagined or AERDF.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Apel, K., and Henbest, V. S. (2020). Morphological awareness skills of second- and third-grade students with and without speech sound disorders. Lang. Speech Hear. Serv. Sch. 51, 603–616. doi: 10.1044/2019_LSHSS-19-00045

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Basma, B., and Savage, R. (2018). Teacher professional development and student literacy growth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 30, 457–481. doi: 10.1007/s10648-017-9416-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., and Johnston, F. (2019). Words Their Way: Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling Instruction, 7th Edn. Pearson.

Google Scholar

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., and Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction. Guilford Press.

Google Scholar

Benner, G. J., Nelson, J. R., Stage, S. A., and Ralston, N. C. (2011). The influence of fidelity of implementation on the reading outcomes of middle school students experiencing reading difficulties. Remedial Spec. Educ. 32, 79–88. doi: 10.1177/0741932510361265

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bogaerds-Hazenberg, S., Evers-Vermeul, J., and van den Bergh, H. (2019). Teachers and researchers as co-designers? A design-based research on reading comprehension instruction in primary education. EDeR. Educ. Design Res. 3:18. doi: 10.15460/eder.3.1.1399

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bosman, A. M., and Van Orden, G. C. (1997). “Why spelling is more difficult than reading,” in Learning to Spell: Research, Theory, and Practice Across Languages, eds. C. A. Perfetti, L. Reiben, and M. Fayol (Lawrence Erlbaum), 173–194.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Cantrell, S. C., and Callaway, P. (2008). High and low implementers of content literacy instruction: portraits of teacher efficacy. Teach. Teach. Educ. 24, 1739–1750. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.020

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Capin, P., Roberts, G., Clemens, N. H., and Vaughn, S. (2022). When treatment adherence matters: interactions among treatment adherence, instructional quality, and student characteristics on reading outcomes. Read. Res. Q. 57, 753–774. doi: 10.1002/rrq.442

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Caravolas, M., Hulme, C., and Snowling, M. J. (2001). The foundations of spelling ability: evidence from a 3-year longitudinal study. J. Mem. Lang. 45, 751–774. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2785

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carlisle, J. F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: an integrative review. Read. Res. Q. 45, 464–487. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.45.4.5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of Reading Development. McGraw-Hill.

Google Scholar

Cho, E., Toste, J. R., Lee, M., and Ju, U. (2019). Motivational predictors of struggling readers' reading comprehension: the effects of mindset, achievement goals, and engagement. Read. Writ. 32, 1219–1242. doi: 10.1007/s11145-018-9908-8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chung, K. K. H., Lam, C. B., Chan, K. S. C., Lee, A. S., Liu, C., Wang, L. C., et al. (2023). Are general anxiety, reading anxiety, and reading self-concept linked to reading skills among chinese adolescents with and without dyslexia? J. Learn. Disabil. 57, 1–14. doi: 10.1177/00222194231181914

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Conrad, N. J. (2008). From reading to spelling and spelling to reading: transfer goes both ways. J. Educ. Psychol. 100, 869–878. doi: 10.1037/a0012544

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Sage Publications

Google Scholar

Dane, A. V., and Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: are implementation effects out of control? Clin. Psychol. Rev. 18, 23–45. doi: 10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00043-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., and Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. doi: 10.54300/122.311

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dawson, N., Hsiao, Y., Tan, A. W. M., Banerji, N., and Nation, K. (2023). Effects of target age and genre on morphological complexity in children's reading material. Sci. Stud. Read. 27, 529–556. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2023.2206574

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educ. Res. 38, 181–199. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08331140

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Didion, L., Toste, J. R., and Filderman, M. J. (2020). Teacher professional development and student reading achievement: a meta-analytic review of the effects. J. Res. Educ. Eff. 13, 29–66. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2019.1670884

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Durlak, J. A., and Dupre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am. J. Community Psychol. 41, 327–350. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manage. Rev. 14, 532–550. doi: 10.2307/258557

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Evans, L. (2014). Leadership for professional development and learning: enhancing our understanding of how teachers develop. Cambridge J. Educ. 44, 179–198. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2013.860083

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Field, A. (2007). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage Publications.

Google Scholar

Filderman, M. J., and Toste, J. R. (2022). Effects of varying levels of data use to intensify a multisyllabic word reading intervention for upper elementary students with or at risk for reading disabilities. J. Learn. Disabilities 55, 393–407. doi: 10.1177/00222194211048405

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fives, H., and Buehl, M. M. (2008). What do teachers believe? Developing a framework for examining beliefs about teachers' knowledge and ability. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 33, 134–176. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.01.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Metz, A., and Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Exceptional Children 79, 213–230. doi: 10.1177/001440291307900206

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., and Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).

Google Scholar

Fogarty, M., Oslund, E., Simmons, D., Davis, J., Simmons, L., Anderson, L., et al. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of a multicomponent reading comprehension intervention in middle schools: a focus on treatment fidelity. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 26, 425–449. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9270-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gage, N., MacSuga-Gage, A., and Detrich, R. (2020). Fidelity of Implementation in Educational Research and Practice. The Wing Institute.

Google Scholar

Georgiou, G. K., Torppa, M., Landerl, K., Desrochers, A., Manolitsis, G., de Jong, P. F., et al. (2020). Reading and spelling development across languages varying in orthographic consistency: do their paths cross?. Child Dev. 91, e266–e279. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13218

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Glaser, B., and Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Sociology Press. doi: 10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Goodwin, A. P., Cho, S. J., Reynolds, D., Silverman, R., and Nunn, S. (2021). Explorations of classroom talk and links to reading achievement in upper elementary classrooms. J. Educ. Psychol. 113:27. doi: 10.1037/edu0000462

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., and Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. J. Educ. Psychol. 104, 879–896. doi: 10.1037/a0029185

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Graves, M. F. (2019). The Vocabulary Book: Learning and Instruction. Teachers College Press.

Google Scholar

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teach. Teach. Theory Pract. 8, 381–391. doi: 10.1080/135406002100000512

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Guskey, T. R. (2003). The role of professional development in education reform. Phi Delta Kappan 84, 748–754. doi: 10.1177/003172170308401007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Haft, S., and Hoeft, F. (2022). Development and preliminary validation of a reading anxiety inventory for children and adolescents.

Google Scholar

Hudson, A. K., Moore, K. A., Han, B., Wee Koh, P., Binks-Cantrell, E., Malatesha Joshi, R., et al. (2021). Elementary teachers' knowledge of foundational literacy skills: a critical piece of the puzzle in the science of reading. Read. Res. Q. 56, S287–S315. doi: 10.1002/rrq.408

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-Case Research Designs: Methods for Clinical and Applied Settings (2nd Ed.). Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Kearns, D. M., and Cooper Borkenhagen, M. J. (2024). Following the rules in an unruly writing system: the cognitive science of learning to read english. Read. Teach. 77, 712–726. doi: 10.1002/trtr.2299

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kearns, D. M., and Hiebert, E. H. (2022). The word complexity of primary-level texts: differences between first and third grade in widely used curricula. Read. Res. Q. 57, 255–285. doi: 10.1002/rrq.429

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kearns, D. M., Rogers, H. J., Al Ghanem, R., and Koriakin, T. (2016). Semantic and phonological ability to adjust recoding: a unique correlate of word reading skill? Sci. Stud. Read. 20, 455–470. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2016.1217865

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 945–980. doi: 10.3102/0034654315626800

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kieffer, M. J., and Lesaux, N. K. (2012). Direct and indirect roles of morphological awareness in the English reading comprehension of native English, Spanish, Filipino, and Vietnamese speakers. Lang. Learn. 62, 1170–1204. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00722.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kingsbery, C. R., Beach, K. D., Gesel, S. A., Wood, C. L., Washburn, E. K., Connors, T., et al. (2025). The impact of multilevel coaching on pre-service teachers' fidelity of implementation of an evidence-based reading intervention. Educ. Sci. 15:244. doi: 10.3390/educsci15020244

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kretlow, A. G., and Bartholomew, C. C. (2010). Using coaching to improve the fidelity of evidence-based practices: a review of studies. Teach. Educ. Spec. Educ. 33, 279–299. doi: 10.1177/0888406410371643

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Levesque, K. C., Breadmore, H. L., and Deacon, S. H. (2021). How morphology impacts reading and spelling: advancing the role of morphology in models of literacy development. J. Res. Read. 44, 10–26. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.12313

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

McArthur, G., Badcock, N., Castles, A., and Robidoux, S. (2022). Tracking the relations between children's reading and emotional health across time: evidence from four large longitudinal studies. Read. Res. Q. 57, 555–585. doi: 10.1002/rrq.426

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

McMaster, K. L., Baker, K., Donegan, R., Hugh, M., and Sargent, K. (2021). Professional development to support teachers' implementation of intensive reading intervention: a systematic review. Remedial Spec. Educ. 42, 329–342. doi: 10.1177/0741932520934099

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mesa, M. P., Hall, C., Zucker, T., Dahl-Leonard, K., Oh, Y., Denton, C., et al. (2024). Unpacking implementation: fidelity and barriers to implementation of a kindergarten reading intervention by teachers. Elementary Sch. J. 125, 77–105. doi: 10.1086/731257

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moats, L. C. (2005). How spelling supports reading. Am. Educ. 6, 12–43.

Google Scholar

Moll, K., Ramus, F., Bartling, J., Bruder, J., Kunze, S., Neuhoff, N., et al. (2014). Cognitive mechanisms underlying reading and spelling development in five European orthographies. Learn. Instr. 29, 65–77. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.09.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nagy, W., and Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Read. Res. Q. 47, 91–108. doi: 10.1002/RRQ.011

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., LaFleur, L. H., Mortenson, B. P., Ranier, D. D., and LeVelle, J. (2000). A comparison of two follow-up strategies to increase teacher intervention implementation in general education following consultation. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 33, 271–284.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Oakhill, J. V., and Cain, K. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Sci. Stud. Read. 16, 91–121. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2010.529219

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

O'Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Rev. Educ. Res. 78, 33–84. doi: 10.3102/0034654307313793

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Parsons, S. A., Hutchison, A. C., Hall, L. A., Parsons, A. W., Ives, S. T., Leggett, A. B., et al. (2019). U.S. teachers' perceptions of online professional development. Teach. Teach. Educ. 82, 33–42. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2019.03.006

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rapp, B., and Lipka, K. (2011). The literate brain: the relationship between spelling and reading. J. Cognit. Neurosci. 23, 1180–1197. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21507

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sabatini, J., Weeks, J., O'Reilly, T., Bruce, K., Steinberg, J., Chao, S., et al. (2019). SARA reading components tests, RISE forms: technical adequacy and test design, 3rd Edition. Educ. Test. Serv. 2019, 1–30. doi: 10.1002/ets2.12269

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schunk, D. H., and Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children's self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Read. Writ. Q. 23, 7–25. doi: 10.1080/10573560600837578

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Snyder, P. A., McGhee, R., and Burchinal, M. (2019). Professional development and teacher fidelity: the impact of training on implementation of early childhood curricula. Early Childhood Res. Q. 46, 66–77. doi: 10.1177/0014402917735512

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sterbinsky, A. (2007). Words Their Way Spelling Inventories: Reliability and Validity Analyses. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis. Available online at: http://rti.pearsoned.com/docs/RTIsite/Reliability_and_Validation_Study_Report.pdf

Google Scholar

Suggate, S. P. (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension interventions. J. Learn. Disabilities 49, 77–96. doi: 10.1177/0022219414528540

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Taboada Barber, A., Klauda, S. L., and Wang, W. (2022). Reading anxiety, engagement, and achievement: a comparison of emergent bilinguals and English monolinguals in the elementary grades. Read. Res. Q. 57, 353–376. doi: 10.1002/rrq.398

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., and Rashotte, C. A. (2012). Test of Word Reading Efficiency, 2nd Edn. ProEd.

Google Scholar

Tortorelli, L. S., Strong, J. Z., and Anderson, B. E. (2024). Multisyllabic decoding achievement and relation to vocabulary at the end of elementary school. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 246, 106–018. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2024.106018

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Toste, J. R., Capin, P., Williams, K. J., Cho, E., and Vaughn, S. (2019). Replication of an experimental study investigating the efficacy of a multisyllabic word reading intervention with and without motivational beliefs training for struggling readers. J. Learn. Disabilities 52, 45–58. doi: 10.1177/0022219418775114

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Traga Philippakos, Z. (2019). Effects of strategy instruction with an emphasis on oral language and dramatization on the quality of first graders' procedural writing. Read. Writ. Q. 35, 409–426. doi: 10.1080/10573569.2018.1547233

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Traga Philippakos, Z. A. (2020). A yearlong, professional development model on genre-based strategy instruction on writing. J. Educ. Res. 113, 177–190. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2020.1767531

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Traga Philippakos, Z. A., and MacArthur, C. A. S. (2021). Examination of genre-based strategy instruction in middle school English Language Arts and science. The Clearinghouse. 94, 151–158. doi: 10.1080/00098655.2021.1894082

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Traga Philippakos, Z. A., Quinn, M. F., and Rocconi, L. (2025a). Multisyllabic instruction for upper elementary learners: A pilot study exploring feasibility and effectiveness. J. Res. Child. Educ. 1–24. doi: 10.1080/02568543.2025.2465585

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Traga Philippakos, Z. A., Quinn, M. F., and Rocconi, L. M. (2024). Developing multisyllabic decoding and encoding skills with upper elementary learners: reporting two cycles of design-based research. Read. Writ. Q. 1–25. doi: 10.1080/10573569.2024.2406005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Traga Philippakos, Z. A., Rocconi, L., and Voggt, A. (2025b). Effects of online professional development on first-grade writing instruction: Coaching plus manual improves teachers' implementation, confidence, and students' writing quality. Writ. Commun. 42, 264–300. doi: 10.1177/07410883241303915

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Traga Philippakos, Z. A., and Voggt, A. (2021). The effects of distant professional development model on second grade teachers' instruction and students? quality of procedural papers. Reading and Writing 34, 1791–1822.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Traga Philippakos, Z. A., Wang, C., and MacArthur, C. (2023). Writing motivation of college students in basic writing and first-year composition classes: confirmatory factor analysis of scales on goals, self-efficacy, beliefs, and affect. J. Learn. Disabilities 56, 72–92. doi: 10.1177/00222194211053238

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tschannen-Moran, M., and McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: four professional development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a new teaching strategy. Element. Sch. J. 110, 228–245. doi: 10.1086/605771

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., and Peyton, J. A. (2006). Paraeducator-supplemented instruction in structural analysis with text reading practice for second and third graders at risk for reading problems. Remedial Spec. Educ. 27, 365–378. doi: 10.1177/07419325060270060601

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vaessen, A., and Blomert, L. (2013). The cognitive linkage and divergence of spelling and reading development. Sci. Stud. Read. 17, 89–107. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2011.614665

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

van Dijk, W., Lane, H. B., and Gage, N. A. (2023). How do intervention studies measure the relation between implementation fidelity and students' reading outcomes: a systematic review. Elementary Sch. J. 124, 56–84. doi: 10.1086/725672

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Varghese, C., Bratsch-Hines, M., Aiken, H., and Vernon-Feagans, L. (2021). Elementary teachers' intervention fidelity in relation to reading and vocabulary outcomes for students at risk for reading-related disabilities. J. Learn. Disabilities 54, 484–496. doi: 10.1177/0022219421999844

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., Dimino, J., Taylor, M. J., Newman-Gonchar, R., Krowka, S., et al. (2022). Providing Reading Interventions for Students in Grades 4–9 (WWC 2022007). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Google Scholar

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., and Pearson, N. A. (2010). Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC) Examiner's Manual. Pro-Ed.

Google Scholar

William McKenna, J., and Parenti, M. (2017). Fidelity Assessment to Improve Teacher Instruction and School Decision Making. J. Appl. Sch. Psychol. 33, 331–346. doi: 10.1080/15377903.2017.1316334

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage Publications.

Google Scholar

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W-. Y., Scarloss, B., and Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement (Issues Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 033). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.

Google Scholar

Zee, M., and Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: a synthesis of 40 years of research. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 981–1015. doi: 10.3102/0034654315626801

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar