Embedded-Explicit Emergent Literacy Intervention I

Embedded–Explicit EmergentLiteracy Intervention I: Background

and Description of ApproachLaura M. Justice

University of Virginia, Charlottesville

Joan N. KaderavekUniversity of Toledo, OH

LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 35 • 201–211 • July 2004 © American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 2010161–1461/04/3503–0201

ABSTRACT: This article, the first of a two-part series,provides background information and a general descrip-tion of an emergent literacy intervention model for at-riskpreschoolers and kindergartners. The embedded–explicitintervention model emphasizes the dual importance ofproviding young children with socially embeddedopportunities for meaningful, naturalistic literacyexperiences throughout the day, in addition to regularstructured therapeutic interactions that explicitly targetcritical emergent literacy goals. The role of the speech-language pathologist (SLP) in the embedded–explicitmodel encompasses both indirect and direct servicedelivery: The SLP consults and collaborates with teachersand parents to ensure the highest quality and quantity ofsocially embedded literacy-focused experiences andserves as a direct provider of explicit interventions usingstructured curricula and/or lesson plans. The goal of thisintegrated model is to provide comprehensive emergentliteracy interventions across a spectrum of early literacyskills to ensure the successful transition of at-riskchildren from prereaders to readers.

KEY WORDS: emergent literacy, literacy, preschoolers,intervention, educational services

LSHSS

B y viewing reading as essentially a complexhigher order linguistic skill, and recognizingthat many reading disabilities reflect an

underlying deficit in language processes and/or knowledge,speech-language pathologists (SLPs) have an indispensablerole to serve in preventing and ameliorating readingdisabilities. Primary prevention activities—that is, arrestingreading problems before they are able to manifest—focuson enhancing emergent literacy development for youngchildren who are vulnerable for later reading problems.

This article, the first in a two-part series, presents aclinically oriented preventive framework for conceptualizingthe delivery of emergent literacy interventions for youngat-risk children. The framework is termed the embedded–explicit model of emergent literacy intervention.

The embedded–explicit model is designed to guide theSLP who works with preschool and/or kindergarten childrenwho are exhibiting difficulties in developing a strongliteracy foundation, as suggested by early literacy screen-ing, parental report, clinical observation, or the presence ofspecific individual risk factors (Justice, Invernizzi, &Meier, 2002). The model emphasizes the use of multitieredintervention for ensuring at-risk children’s attainment ofcritical emergent literacy skills to promote their successfultransition from prereaders to readers. The term “at-risk” isused in this article to collectively describe those childrenwho are developing emergent literacy skills more slowlythan their peers, and are therefore susceptible for laterreading difficulties. This includes not only children withlanguage impairments, but also children with intellectualdisabilities and children who have been reared in house-holds in which literacy experiences are—for whateverreasons—underemphasized or infrequent. It also mayinclude children with no obvious risk factors, but whoexhibit underdeveloped literacy skills relative to their same-age peers.

The rationale for the present article and the companionarticle (Kaderavek & Justice, 2004) is to provide SLPs witha comprehensive framework for organizing emergentliteracy interventions for young children. The present articleis organized to first provide a general orientation toemergent literacy, including a brief presentation of histori-cal context. The article then describes current models ofemergent literacy intervention to provide background

202 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 35 • 201–211 • July 2004

information used to develop the embedded–explicit emer-gent literacy intervention model. Last, the article presentsthe embedded–explicit model and discusses the role ofSLPs in implementing this model. The companion article(Kaderavek & Justice, 2004) more specifically discusseschildren who are likely to benefit from this approach toemergent literacy intervention, presents specific literacygoals targeted during intervention, and provides examplesof how this approach can be implemented most effectivelyin preschool and kindergarten classrooms.

AN ORIENTATION TO EMERGENT LITERACY

The term emergent literacy is used to describe pre-literate children’s skills related to reading and writingbefore their achievement of conventional literacy (Sulzby,1985; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). Children’s emergentliteracy has received considerable attention of late inacademic, practitioner, and policy-making circles, as theseskills are viewed as the developmental precursors tochildren’s attainment of fluent, skilled reading ability(Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). That is, emergent literacyskills—which are typically acquired in the preschoolyears—provide the foundation for children’s subsequenttransitions to early or beginning reading and, ultimately, theachievement of conventional, skilled reading.

Several key areas of emergent literacy attainment arepresented in Table 1, including phonological awareness,print concepts, alphabet knowledge, and literate languagefeatures. Attainment of these skills is seen as pivotal in thesuccessful transition of children from prereaders to readers.An understanding of the sources of individual differencesin children’s development of skills in each area paves theway for significantly decreasing the occurrence of readingdisability, as difficulty with emergent literacy appears to be acausal contributor to later challenges in reading achievement(Badian, 2000; Catts, Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2002; Elbro,Borstrom, & Petersen, 1998; Scarborough, 1989; Speece,Roth, Cooper, & de la Paz, 1999). The importance of earlyattainment of emergent literacy skills to children’s laterachievements in skilled reading argues the importance ofdeveloping effective models of emergent literacy interventionto reduce the likelihood of later reading difficulties.

The last decade has therefore seen a tremendousincrease in applied studies of the effectiveness of emergentliteracy interventions for young at-risk children (e.g., Chow& McBride-Chang, 2003; Justice & Ezell, 2000, 2002;Neuman & Roskos, 1993; O’Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, &Slocum, 1993; van Kleeck, Gillam, & McFadden, 1998;Whitehurst et al., 1994, 1999). Although this field ofresearch is relatively new, this emergent corpus of workhas shown the value of early interventions for supportingliteracy achievements in young at-risk children and,importantly, the potential long-term advantage of suchinterventions for influencing later reading achievements.

The relationship between emergent literacy interventionand reading development—exemplified in the recent volumecommissioned by the National Research Council, Preventing

Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, &Griffin, 1998)—has broadened the role of SLPs withrespect to literacy over the past few years (see AmericanSpeech-Language-Hearing Association [ASHA], 2001). Thisrole enhancement is not without controversy (e.g.,Goldberg, 2003), as seeking out current “best practices” inemergent literacy intervention is complicated by therelatively limited empirical data confirming the value ofspecific intervention approaches, the political climate inwhich schools are under pressure to demonstrate yearlyimprovement in student literacy achievement via standard-ized tests (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001), and omnipres-ent concerns about existing SLP caseload demands andconstraints (ASHA, 2000).

Additionally, the current roles of SLPs concerningliteracy have been complicated by recent, yet dramatic,shifts in perspectives concerning service delivery modelsand how literacy development and intervention is mostappropriately conceptualized. In the early 1990s, manyexperts encouraged SLPs to move toward more collabora-tive and consultative classroom-based models of servicedelivery (Creaghead, 1992; Ferguson, 1991). Variations ofthis approach were discussed, using terms such as teamteaching, co-teaching, supportive instruction, complementaryinstruction (DiMeo, Merritt, & Culatta, 1998), or thetransdisciplinary model (Linder, 1993; Woodruff &

Table 1. Key areas of emergent literacy development forpreschool and kindergarten.

Area of emergent literacy Description

Phonological awareness Awareness of the sound structure ofspoken language at the level of theword, syllable, onset-rime, andphoneme. At each level, skillscomprise both blending (e.g., b-agis bag) and segmenting (e.g., dog isd-o-g).

Print concepts Knowledge of how print isorganized, including relationshipsbetween written language units (e.g.,letters make up words) and themetalinguistic terminology used todescribe print (e.g., letter, word,write). Also includes understandingof how books are organized, theform and functions of environmentalprint, differential features of variousprint genre, and developmentalwriting skills.

Alphabet knowledge Knowledge of the distinctivefeatures and names of individualletters in both upper- and lower-caseformats.

Literate language Use of specific syntax/semanticfeatures characterizing written texts(i.e., adverbs, conjunctions, mental/linguistic verbs, elaborated nounphrases) to explicitly render meaningin decontextualized discourse.

Justice • Kaderavek: Emergent Literacy Intervention I 203

McGonigel, 1988). These approaches encouraged SLPs topartner with teachers to meet intervention goals (Russell &Kaderavek, 1993).

At approximately the same time, educators in generalwere urged to use a whole-language approach to readingdevelopment (Goodman, 1986; Goodman & King 1990;Westby, 1990). Whole-language theory was a move awayfrom the behavioral educational approaches of the 1980s,which stressed patterned drills and isolated linguistic skills.Instead, whole-language therapy stressed the reciprocal anddynamic relationship between oral and written language andendorsed the teaching of literacy through children’sintentional exploration and active engagement in con-textualized literacy experiences (Goodman, 1986; Norris &Damico, 1990).

Taken together, increased emphasis on both collaborationand whole-language models of instruction propelled SLPsinto early education classrooms to begin teacher collabora-tion using whole-language concepts. These concepts easilymeshed with language-learning principles that were familiarto SLPs, including social-interactionist models of earlylearning (Rogoff, 1991), functional approaches to languageintervention (Norris & Damico, 1990), and the importanceof maintaining contextual relevance (Duchan, Hewitt, &Sonnenmeier, 1994). The whole-language emphasis oncommunicating meaning through print as a model ofliteracy instruction provided a logical bridge for SLPs tobecome involved as teacher collaborators within preschooland kindergarten classrooms.

Just as SLPs were becoming comfortable with their newroles in early literacy development, however, researchbegan to emerge that emphasized the critical influence ofdiscrete emergent literacy skills, particularly phonologicalawareness, print concepts, and alphabet knowledge, and theparticular difficulties of children with language weaknessesin these developments. Specifically, convergent evidencefrom a variety of disciplines and research methodologiesdemonstrated that children’s phonological awareness, printconcepts, and alphabet knowledge provided significant andunique variance in the prediction of later reading achieve-ment (for phonological awareness, see Bradley & Bryant,1983; Bryant, Maclean, Bradley, & Crossland, 1990; Burgess& Lonigan, 1998; Christensen, 1997; Lonigan, Burgess,Anthony, & Barker, 1998; for print concepts, see Badian,2000; Chaney, 1998; Clay, 1998; Phillips, Norris, & Mason,1996; Stuart, 1995; Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988; foralphabet knowledge, see Badian, 2000; Burgess & Lonigan,1998; Christensen, 1997; Stuart, 1995; Tunmer et al., 1988;for review, see Scarborough, 1998). Experts increasinglyemphasized that learning to read required distinct founda-tional skills in these areas, and that early individualdifferences across these areas of literacy explained signifi-cant portions of variability in reading achievement observedamong school-age readers. It was argued that reading,unlike oral language, was not necessarily biologicallypreprogrammed and did not develop naturally in allchildren (Chall, 1996; Paul, 2001). Experts suggested thatmany children—if not all—would benefit from directteaching of these foundational literacy skills. At about thesame time, research began to show children with language

impairment (LI) to consistently demonstrate underdevelopedskills in these critical emergent literacy areas relative totheir typically developing peers (e.g., Gillam & Johnston,1985; Magnusson & Naucler, 1990, 1993). Of additionalconcern, children with LI were found to exhibit significantrisk for experiencing reading disabilities and academicproblems despite participating in language-focused interven-tions, (e.g., Aram, Ekelman, & Nation, 1984; Bishop &Adams, 1990; Catts & Kamhi, 1986).

As a consequence, the role of SLPs in emergent literacyand the benefit of alternative approaches to literacyintervention have increasingly been reexamined. Improvingearly achievements in phonological awareness, printconcepts, and alphabet knowledge is currently identified asa core responsibility of SLPs working with young children(ASHA, 2001), and meeting the needs of children withcommunicative impairments in these areas is a primaryfocus. However, a wider group of vulnerable children likelyto become “poor readers,” who may not necessarily meetthe diagnostic standards for LI also are likely to benefitfrom direct or indirect SLP involvement (ASHA, 2001).This position is supported by documentation that poorreaders often have a history of underdeveloped phonologi-cal awareness abilities, subtle impairments with higher levelcognitive–linguistic tasks, and clinically depressed orallanguage skills (Bishop & Adams, 1990; Catts et al., 2002;Lombardino, Riccio, Hynd, & Pinheiro, 1997; Scarborough,1989; Stothard, Snowling, Bishop, Chipcase, & Kaplan,1998). Collaborative interventions featuring collectiveinvolvement of preschool and kindergarten teachers, SLPs,and parents to ensure timely development of key readingprecursors for all at-risk children is currently the goldstandard for emergent literacy education and intervention(see Snow et al., 1998).

CURRENT MODELS OFEMERGENT LITERACY INTERVENTION

Empirical research documenting the efficacy andeffectiveness of various emergent literacy interventionapproaches for at-risk preschool and kindergarten childrenis a fairly recent enterprise. Nevertheless, this small butgrowing corpus of work has shown that early childhoodactivities and experiences can be structured for youngchildren, including those with disabilities, in specific waysto accelerate key areas of emergent literacy development(e.g., Brady, Fowler, Stone, & Winbury, 1994; Ezell,Justice, & Parsons, 2000; Justice, Chow, Michel, Flanigan,& Colton, 2003; Justice & Ezell, 2002; Katims, 1991;Majsterek, Shorr, & Erion, 2000; Neuman & Roskos, 1993;O’Connor, Notari-Syverson, & Vadasy, 1996; Saint-Laurent,Giasson, & Couture, 1998; Schneider, Roth, & Ennemoser,2000; van Kleeck et al., 1998).

Collective consideration of this research corpus showsemergent literacy interventions to have generally taken oneof two approaches that reflect dichotomous theoreticalperspectives based on either a “top-down” holistic model ofreading development or a “bottom-up” reductionist learning


model (Bloom & Lahey, 1978). Watkins and Bunce (1996)contrasted these models as reflecting “whole-language”versus “phonological awareness” orientations of emergentliteracy development. An emphasis on top-down or whole-language principles of reading development is reflected ininterventions emphasizing children’s development ofemergent literacy skills through child-directed, informal,naturalistic, contextualized, and meaningful interactionswith oral and written language embedded throughout theday (Clay, 1998; Katims & Pierce, 1995; Watkins & Bunce,1996). This is described here as an embedded approach toemergent literacy enhancement to emphasize how skills aretargeted for young children, rather than using terminologythat emphasizes a theoretical position on literacy develop-ment (e.g., whole language/top down). Interventions with abottom-up orientation, in contrast, emphasize explicitteaching that directs a child’s attention to a range ofdiscrete emergent literacy targets through directive clini-cian- and/or teacher-led instructional opportunities occurringon a regularly scheduled basis. Again, with an emphasis onhow skills are targeted, the term explicit approach is usedhere to discuss such interventions. Key characteristics ofthese two intervention orientations are described further.

Embedded Approaches

Embedded approaches to emergent literacy interventionemphasize the unique value of children’s self-initiated,naturalistic, and contextualized interactions with oral andwritten language that are embedded throughout the day. Theemphasis of such approaches is children’s expression ofmeaning and intent through their literacy acts, and thesocial value of literacy behaviors. An additional emphasisof embedded approaches is the role of adults as facilitatorsof children’s learning, and the influence of social interac-tions and child–adult relationships on children’s literacydevelopment (Justice & Ezell, 1999; Watkins & Bunce,1996). That is, children’s literacy growth is fosteredthrough and grounded within socially embedded literacyexperiences and interactions. Social contexts used tofacilitate children’s emergent literacy knowledge includeadult-mediated play involving literacy-related artifacts (e.g.,crayons, lists, signs), interactions with contextualized printin the environment, and scaffolded exchanges with the oraland written language of storybooks. Direct instruction orclinician-directed therapeutic interventions are not used forskill development in embedded approaches (Watson,Layton, Pierce, & Abraham, 1994).

Studies of emergent literacy interventions of an embed-ded approach have focused on the value of broad environ-mental modifications to increase children’s naturalisticexposure to literacy concepts throughout the day, as well astheir participation in socially interactive, meaningfulliteracy events and their use of literacy artifacts, such asbooks, writing utensils, signs, and lists. Katims (1991), forinstance, implemented a year-long emergent literacyprogram for preschoolers with disabilities; this classroom-based program featured implementation and use of a well-stocked classroom library and classroom writing center inaddition to frequent adult–child storybook readings.

Relative to a control group, children in the literacy-richclassroom made significantly greater gains over theacademic year in their attainment of print concepts.

Literacy-enriched play settings (e.g., Christie & Enz,1992; Neuman & Roskos, 1993), print-rich classroomenvironments (Taylor, Blum, & Logsdon, 1986), and adult–child shared storybook reading (e.g., Justice & Ezell, 2002;McCormick & Mason, 1986, 1989; Phillips et al., 1996;Whitehurst et al., 1994) are additional embedded ap-proaches that have been researched. Studies have focusedprimarily on examining the influence of such interventionson children’s print concepts, alphabet knowledge, andwriting, with little focus on phonological awarenessoutcomes. Literacy-enriched play settings foster children’sexposure to print and interactions with literacy artifacts byproviding play centers that are infused with literacymaterials (e.g., signs, labels, and functional print items).These are particularly effective when adults mediatechildren’s play by encouraging their dramatic use ofliteracy artifacts (Neuman & Roskos, 1993). Print-richenvironments increase children’s exposure to and interac-tions with written language by instilling the classroom withlarge quantities of meaningful print stimuli (e.g., story-books, notes, lists, directions, schedules, labels) (Katims,1991). Adult–child shared storybook reading interventionsfocus on increasing children’s participation in readingexchanges (Whitehurst et al., 1994). These types ofprograms also emphasize the use of storybook reading as away to encourage children’s implicit and explicit knowl-edge about written language (Justice & Ezell, 2000;Ukrainetz, Cooney, Dyer, Kysar, & Harris, 2000). Repeatedexposure to storybooks is a particularly effective naturalis-tic language-learning opportunity: Adult–child repeatedreadings allow children to develop a literacy “whole” thatsubsequently facilitates their comprehension of specificliteracy “parts” (Bishop, 1997; Lahey, 1988; Paul, 2001).

Explicit Approaches

Explicit models of emergent literacy interventionemphasize the importance of structured, sequenced clini-cian-directed instruction for the development of discreteskills. In such models, clinicians select particular learningtargets, a sequence of exposing children to those targets,and the materials that are most facilitative for achievingintervention aims. Unlike embedded models, which tend toemphasize the meaning and intentions of particular literacybehaviors, explicit models take a more decontextualized anddirect route to enhance basic skill units. Relative toembedded approaches, children’s exposure to literacyconcepts in explicit approaches tends to be less naturalisticand features greater adult control, with the interventionistselecting goals and materials and specifying the teachingsequence and content. Explicit teaching is used to direct achild’s attention to a range of emergent literacy skillsthrough directive instructional opportunities occurring on aregularly scheduled and carefully sequenced basis. Theseinstructional opportunities feature adult modeling, demon-stration, targeted elicitation, and repeated guided practice.

Explicit approaches to emergent literacy intervention


operate from the perspective that at-risk children, includingthose with significant oral language problems, requirerepeated, systematic, and deliberately scaffolded exposuresto those difficult-to-acquire concepts and skills. Theserepeated learning opportunities are used to encouragechildren’s timely development of new skills and knowledge,while at the same time facilitate children’s use of previ-ously acquired skills in developmental sequences. Animportant goal of explicit programs is to bring aspects oflanguage and literacy to a metalinguistic level. Operating atthe “meta level” facilitates children’s conscious manipula-tion of structures needed for literacy success and to learnthe associations among smaller and larger parts of thealphabetic code. For example, to be a successful reader,children must eventually understand the relationshipsbetween phonemes, syllables, and words. Engagement insystematic interventions that expedite part-to-whole learningis a central feature of explicit literacy interventions.

Explicit approaches do not necessarily focus exclusivelyon phonological awareness, although phonological aware-ness has often been a central focus of this type of interven-tion. Phonological awareness deficits have been consistentlylinked to reading disability (see Catts & Kamhi, 1999;Stanovich, 2000; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994), andrelatively large numbers of children with language-basedreading disability have protracted difficulty in analyzingand manipulating oral language at the phonologic andphonemic levels. This suggests the importance of address-ing phonological awareness in emergent literacy interven-tions for children who are vulnerable for early and laterdifficulties in this area. However, analyzing and manipulat-ing oral language at the phonologic and phonemic levels isneither a meaningful nor a naturalistic activity (seeLiberman, 1999; Liberman & Liberman, 1990), makingchildren’s participation in phonological awareness activitiesgenerally incompatible with embedded approaches toemergent literacy intervention. Successful phonologicalawareness interventions have most often featured children’sexplicit engagement in code-based tasks that providefrequent exposure and repeated practice with analyzing andmanipulating phonological segments of oral language (e.g.,words, syllables, onset/rimes, phonemes) (e.g., Brady et al.,1994; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; O’Connor et al.,1996).

An example of one program that has proven to beeffective for improving phonological awareness and otheraspects of emergent literacy for kindergarten children wasconducted by O’Connor et al. (1996). Typical and at-riskchildren (e.g., children with speech/language impairment,autism, mental retardation) completed brief, daily teacher-led lessons in large or small groups involving explicitopportunities to analyze oral language at the level of theword, syllable, onset-rime, and phoneme. Outcome mea-sures involving phonological awareness and early readingtasks showed that children receiving these lessons signifi-cantly improved their phonological awareness and readingskills relative to a control group. Similar findings weredemonstrated in van Kleeck et al.’s (1998) implementationof a 2-semester phonological awareness intervention forpreschoolers with speech/language impairments, and by

Brady et al.’s (1994) study of an 18-week classroom-basedphonological awareness program for at-risk kindergartners.These studies have shown explicit phonological awarenessinstruction to be an effective route to skill development,and that emergent literacy intervention can make significantcontributions to later reading achievement.

In addition to phonological awareness, other founda-tional emergent literacy skills can be addressed throughexplicit teaching, including print concepts and alphabetknowledge. Skills in these areas tend to develop moreslowly for children with LI and those reared in disadvan-taged circumstances (Boudreau & Hedberg, 1999; Loniganet al., 1998). Justice and Ezell (2000, 2002) have con-ducted several studies examining the impact of adult use of“print-referencing behaviors” when reading with pre-schoolers. Print-referencing behaviors are used by adults tocreate a metalinguistic focus within the book readingcontext, and have been shown to influence children’salphabet knowledge and print concepts.

Explicit teaching can also be used to support children’suse of literate language features, which are an importantelement of decontextualized narrative discourse. Narrativediscourse is an important foundational skill in children’sdevelopment of written language (Kaderavek & Sulzby,2000; Roth & Speckman, 1986). In decontextualizeddiscourse, meaning is conveyed through specific linguisticfeatures, primarily grammar and vocabulary. Westby (1999)described children’s use of precise grammar and vocabularyto linguistically render meaning in discourse as literatelanguage. Literate language features include conjunctions,elaborated noun phrases, mental/linguistic verbs (e.g., think,know, remember), and adverbs. Use of these forms assistschildren to more closely match the decontextualizedlinguistic structures that are representative of written texts(Greenhalgh & Strong, 2001; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2001).Intervention research has shown explicit teaching ap-proaches to effectively facilitate preschoolers’ ability to usespecific structures similar to these targets (e.g., Fey,Cleave, & Long, 1997), and that children can benefit fromexplicit exposure to the metalinguistic features contributingto “making a good story.” For example, Hayward andSchneider (2000) initiated an explicit narrative interventionfor 13 preschool children with LI; as a group, childrenshowed significant improvements in story information andstructural complexity following the 7-week intervention.

AN INTEGRATED PERSPECTIVE:THE EMBEDDED–EXPLICIT MODEL

Interventions that have been developed and evaluated tosupport emergent literacy in young children have thustypically featured an embedded or explicit orientation. Theembedded–explicit model of emergent literacy interventiontakes an integrated approach to emphasize practicesassociated with both orientations. This model featureschildren’s participation in high-quality daily opportunitiesfor naturalistic, meaningful, intentional, and highly con-textualized interactions with oral and written language. The


model also features the use of focused therapeutic clinician-directed interventions to explicitly target those skills thatare linked most critically with later reading success;explicit intervention is provided to all children in thepreschool or kindergarten classroom, with additional effortdevoted to children who show treatment resistance.

The goal of the embedded–explicit integrated model isto synthesize two promising strands of evidence-basedpractices (i.e., whole-language and phonological awarenessliteratures) to arrive at an intervention approach that ismaximally efficient and effective for young at-risk childrenby (a) attending to the widespread aims of emergentliteracy intervention and (b) clarifying the role of SLPs ascollaborators and direct intervention providers.

The Widespread Aims ofEmergent Literacy Intervention

When working with young children who are vulnerablefor literacy-related challenges, two critical aims should betaken into consideration when selecting interventionapproaches. Both aims are addressed in the embedded–explicit model. A first aim is ensuring children’s develop-ment of those skills that are most highly associated withlater reading achievement, including phonological aware-ness, print concepts, alphabet knowledge, and literatelanguage. The extant literature suggests that explicit modelsof intervention provide a particularly effective and efficientmechanism for ensuring widespread skill development inmost, if not all, of these areas. For instance, in one recentstudy (Justice et al., 2003), at-risk preschoolers completed a12-week emergent literacy program divided into twosegments. One segment featured highly contextualized,naturalistic literacy activities through repeated adult–childstorybook readings and scaffolded story telling experiences.The other segment featured children’s participation indirective, explicit clinician-led activities, including guidedname writing, alphabet recitations with discussions aboutspecific letters, and phonological awareness games (e.g.,matching words on the basis of rhyme). Children madesubstantially greater gains in five areas of emergent literacyknowledge during the 6-week segment with explicit,directive activities as compared to the segment featuringhighly contextualized nondirective naturalistic literacyactivities. Six weeks of explicit instruction significantlyincreased children’s scores on tests of phonologicalawareness (two measures), print concepts, alphabet knowl-edge, and early writing.

The second and equally important aim of emergentliteracy intervention is, however, to promote children’sdevelopment of literacy interest, which refers to a positiveorientation toward literacy learning. Kaderavek and Sulzby(1998) found children with LI to be considerably morelikely than other children to display a negative orientationtoward literacy. This is an important finding, as positiveregard for literacy contributes to long-term reading successand higher outcomes during emergent literacy interventions(Frijters, Barron, & Brunello, 2000; Justice et al., 2003).Positive literacy orientation may increase the sustainability

and generalizability of literacy development as childrenbecome self-directed literacy learners, as children with highliteracy orientation are more likely to initiate literacyinteractions with parents and teachers. In turn, frequentliteracy interactions, such as adult–child storybook reading,have short- and long-term positive impact on children’sliteracy outcomes (Pellegrini, Galda, Jones, & Perlmutter,1995; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994; Senechal, Thomas, &Monker, 1995).

Embedded models of intervention may be more effectivethan explicit models for increasing children’s positiveorientation to literacy (see Kaderavek & Justice, 2002), asthe importance of increasing children’s self-initiated con-textualized literacy interactions is a key emphasis of thesemodels. In embedded approaches, children learn to useliteracy as an instrument for self-expression and exploration.This is quite different from the aim of explicit interventions:Indeed, promoting children’s positive regard for literacy andtheir awareness of instrumental, functional aspects of literacytends to be de-emphasized in explicit models.

The widespread aims of emergent literacy interventionare thus (a) to increase children’s skills in discrete skillareas that are critically linked to later reading success and(b) to promote children’s positive regard for literacy andtheir understanding of the functional, intentional use ofliteracy. To address these two aims simultaneously, theembedded–explicit model balances the use of directive,explicit interventions that result in developmental change intargeted areas with use of interventions emphasizing sociallyembedded, highly contextualized, self-initiated literacyinteractions to promote children’s positive orientation andinstrumental knowledge of literacy. The embedded–explicitmodel is depicted in Figure 1. As can be seen, embeddedopportunities occur across the classroom day and use threeevidence-based practices: print-rich environment, adult–childshared storybook reading, and literacy-enriched play settings.Explicit instruction occurs on a less frequent but regularbasis, during which children participate in adult-ledinstructional lessons focusing on specific literacy targets.

Role of the SLP in theEmbedded–Explicit Model

The involvement of the SLP in implementing theembedded–explicit model is critical. In a summary ofcurrent research findings, Pearson (2002) stressed theimportance of (a) building literacy programs on a solidbase of language development activities, (b) attending toboth the global (i.e., discourse) as well as the discreteaspects of literacy learning, and (c) implementing small-group as well as whole-class learning opportunities. SLPshave clear expertise in these significant areas and can makean important contribution in fulfilling these goals, particu-larly for children who are at risk for difficulties withliteracy development.

In implementing the embedded–explicit model, SLPscollaborate and consult with teachers to ensure thatnondirective, contextualized literacy-learning events occurthroughout the classroom day, and that all children in the


classroom are actively engaged in these ongoing embeddedlearning events. This is best accomplished by SLPs workingin the classroom to mediate individual and small-groupliteracy interactions for children and to model language andliteracy facilitation strategies for teachers. For example,sentence recasts, open-ended questions, and focusedcontrasts are effective techniques to increase children’scomprehension and use of written language forms duringtypical preschool activities.

To implement the explicit part of the model, the SLPtakes a more direct role in service delivery—by regularlyleading whole-class and/or small-group emergent literacylesson plans. In this role, the clinician identifies individuallearner goals, selects materials and activities, monitorsprogress, and works with teachers and parents to ensuregeneralization and retention of emergent literacy skills forindividual children. The clinician may use a commerciallyavailable curricula (see Table 2) or develop individualizedlesson plans to address specific learning targets, as de-scribed in the companion article to this paper (Kaderavek& Justice, 2004). The schedule of specific interventionimplementation varies according to the needs of particularchildren, programs, or curricula. However, O’Connor et al.

(1996) argued that brief interventions (i.e., less than 15weeks in duration) are generally insufficient for sustainablegains for children who are vulnerable for literacy-develop-ment difficulties.

Research Support for theEmbedded–Explicit Model of Intervention

The embedded–explicit model of intervention has yet tobe critically examined, although bodies of research haveprovided support for outcomes associated with the embed-ded and explicit approaches reported in this article. Forinstance, children have experienced gains in recognizingenvironmental print following adult-mediated literacy-playinterventions, a type of embedded intervention (Neuman &Roskos, 1993); likewise, children have experienced consid-erable phonological awareness growth through explicitclinician-directed programs (e.g., Justice et al., 2003). Nostudies, however, have demonstrated widespread outcomesfor children participating in emergent literacy interventiontranscending phonological awareness, print concepts,alphabet knowledge, literate language, early writing, and

Figure 1. Graphic depiction of the embedded–explicit model of emergent literacy intervention for at-risk children.

Role of SLP


literacy interest. It is likely that a dual-pronged embedded–explicit model is the only way to achieve such aims.

There is some preliminary evidence showing theeffectiveness of an emergent literacy intervention that isconsistent with an embedded–explicit paradigm, reported intwo studies by Whitehurst and associates (Whitehurst et al.,1994, 1999). In these studies, preschool children in HeadStart received a multifaceted emergent literacy interventioninvolving frequent adult–child storybook reading as well asexplicit classroom-based emergent literacy instruction. Thestorybook reading routines featured adults’ use of dialogicreading behaviors, which are designed to involve childrenin reading interactions as active participants; these includeasking open-ended questions, using repetitions and expan-sions, and offering praise and encouragement. A moreformal classroom-based instructional component also wasused that focused on children’s development of phonologi-cal awareness through a teacher-led, explicit skills-basedemergent literacy curriculum (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley,1991), with lessons occurring at least three times weekly.Outcomes assessment showed that children receivingintervention made robust gains in phonological awareness,print concepts, and writing relative to children in controlclassrooms. Follow-up kindergarten assessments showed theadvantage of preschool participation in emergent literacyintervention to be maintained for an additional year(Whitehurst et al., 1999). Although this research providespreliminary support of one variation of the embedded–explicit model, further work is required to show therelative advantage of this approach to other models ofemergent literacy intervention.

SUMMARY

This article described the embedded–explicit model ofemergent literacy intervention and presented backgroundinformation used to develop the model. The embedded–explicit model reflects a contemporary integrated approach todeveloping emergent literacy skills in at-risk preschoolersand kindergartners. The rationale for the model is that anintegrated approach that capitalizes on evidence-based

practices of seemingly dichotomous orientations (i.e.,whole-language orientation, phonological awarenessorientation; see Watkins & Bunce, 1996) is likely tooptimize emergent literacy outcomes for young childrenrelative to the use of less integrated models. Researchsuggests that at-risk children, including those with LI, canbenefit from explicit training on a wide range of languageand literacy forms that are closely aligned with earlyliteracy development and later reading achievement. At thesame time, embedded approaches to supporting literacydevelopment are important for promoting positive literacyinterest and for ensuring maintainable and generalizedliteracy skills.

Clinicians are encouraged to provide a balanced use ofinterventions to ensure children’s frequent participation insocially embedded, highly contextualized literacy interac-tions that promote positive regard toward literacy experi-ences, with the use of directive, explicit activities thatresult in widespread developmental changes. The compan-ion article to this paper (Kaderavek & Justice, 2004) morespecifically describes the children who are believed tobenefit from the embedded–explicit model, providesspecific language and literacy goals, and provides examplesof how this approach can be implemented effectively in thepreschool or kindergarten classroom.

REFERENCES

Adams, M. J., Foorman, B. R., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T.(1998). Phonemic awareness in young children. Baltimore: PaulH. Brookes.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2000).Guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of the school-basedspeech-language pathologist. Rockville, MD: Author.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001). Rolesand responsibilities of speech-language pathologists with respectto reading and writing in children and adolescents (positionstatement, executive summary of guidelines, technical report).Asha Supplement, 21, 17–27.

Aram, D. M., Ekelman, B., & Nation, J. E. (1984). Preschoolerswith language disorders: 10 years later. Journal of Speech and

Table 2. Examples of commercially available curricula for the explicit component of intervention.

Title (author) Target population

Building Early Literacy and Language Skills Preschool, kindergarten(Paulson, Noble, Jepson, & van den Pol, 2001)

Ladders to Literacy: A Preschool Activity Book Preschool(Notari-Syverson, O’Connor, & Vadasy, 1998)

Ladders to Literacy: A Kindergarten Activity Book Kindergarten(O’Connor, Notari-Syverson, & Vadasy, 1998)

Phonemic Awareness in Young Children Preschool, kindergarten(Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, & Beeler, 1998)

Road to the Code (Blachman, Ball, Black, & Tangel, 2000) Kindergarten


Hearing Research, 27, 232–244.

Badian, N. A. (2000). Do preschool orthographic skills contributeto prediction of reading? In N. Badian (Ed.), Prediction andprevention of reading failure (pp. 31–56). Timonium, MD: YorkPress.

Bishop, D. (1997). Uncommon understanding: Development anddisorders of language comprehension in children. East Sussex,UK: Psychology Press Unlimited.

Bishop, D. V. M., & Adams, C. (1990). A prospective study ofthe relationship between specific language impairment, phono-logical disorders and reading retardation. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry, 31, 1027–1050.

Blachman, B. A., Ball, E. W., Black, R., & Tangel, D. M.(2000). Road to the code. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Bloom, L., & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development andlanguage disorders. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Boudreau, D. M., & Hedberg, N. L. (1999). A comparison ofearly literacy skills in children with specific language impair-ment and their typically developing peers. American Journal ofSpeech-Language Pathology, 8, 249–260.

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds andlearning to read—A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419–421.

Brady, S., Fowler, A., Stone, B., & Winbury, N. (1994). Trainingphonological awareness: A study with inner-city kindergartenchildren. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 26–59.

Bryant, P. E., Maclean, M., Bradley, L. L., & Crossland, J.(1990). Rhyme and alliteration, phoneme detection, and learningto read. Developmental Psychology, 26, 429–438.

Burgess, S. R., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Bidirectional relationsof phonological sensitivity and prereading abilities: Evidencefrom a preschool sample. Journal of Experimental ChildPsychology, 70, 117–141.

Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. F. (1991). Sound foundations.New South Wales, Australia: Leyden Educational Publishers.

Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2002).Longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children withlanguage impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and HearingResearch, 45, 1142–1157.

Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (1986). The linguistic basis ofreading disorders: Implications for the speech-languagepathologist. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,17, 329–341.

Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (1999). Language and readingdisabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Chall, J. (1996). Learning to read: The great debate (3rd ed.).New York: McGraw Hill.

Chaney, C. (1998). Preschool language and metalinguistic skillsare links to reading success. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19,433–446.

Chow, B. W., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Promoting languageand literacy development through parent–child reading in HongKong preschoolers. Early Education and Development, 14,233–248.

Christensen, C. A. (1997). Onset, rhymes, and phonemes inlearning to read. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 341–358.

Christie, J. F., & Enz, B. (1992). The effects of literacy playinterventions on preschoolers’ play patterns and literacydevelopment. Early Education and Development, 3, 205–220.

Clay, M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York,ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Creaghead, N. (1992). Collaboration as a service delivery model.In ASHA Transcript Series, Focus on school issues: Classroomintegration and collaborative consultation as service deliverymodels (pp. 6–19). Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.

DiMeo, J. H., Merritt, D. D., & Culatta, B. (1998). Collaborativepartnerships and decision making. In D. D. Merritt & B. Culatta(Eds.), Language intervention in the classroom (pp. 37–98). SanDiego, CA: Singular.

Duchan, J., Hewitt, L., & Sonnenmeier, R. (1994). Pragmaticsfrom theory to practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Elbro, C., Borstrom, I., & Petersen, D. K. (1998). Predictingdyslexia from kindergarten: The importance of distinctness ofphonological representations of lexical items. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 33, 36–60.

Ezell, H. K., Justice, L. M., & Parsons, D. (2000). Enhancing theemergent literacy skills of preschoolers with communicationdisorders: A pilot investigation. Child Language Teaching andTherapy, 16, 121–140.

Ferguson, M. L. (1991). Collaborative/consultative servicedelivery: An introduction. Language, Speech, and HearingServices in Schools, 22, 147.

Fey, M. E., Cleave, P. L., & Long, S. H. (1997). Two models ofgrammar facilitation with language impairments: Phase 2.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 5–19.

Frijters, J. C., Barron, R. W., & Brunello, M. (2000). Direct andmediated influences of home literacy and literacy interest onprereaders’ oral vocabulary and early written language skill.Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 466–477.

Gillam, R. B., & Johnston, J. R. (1985). Development of printawareness in language-disordered preschoolers. Journal ofSpeech and Hearing Research, 28, 521–526.

Goldberg, S. (2003, April). Are we as a profession losing ourheart? [Letter to the editor]. The ASHA Leader, 8.

Goodman, K. (1986). What’s whole in whole language? Ports-mouth, NH: Heinemann.

Goodman, K., & King, D. F. (1990). Whole language: Cherishinglearners and their language. Language, Speech, and HearingServices in Schools, 21, 221–227.

Greenhalgh, K. S., & Strong, C. J. (2001). Literate languagefeatures in spoken narratives of children with typical languageand children with language impairments. Language, Speech, andHearing Services in Schools, 32, 114–125.

Hayward, D., & Schneider, P. (2000). Effectiveness of teachingstory grammar knowledge to pre-school children with languageimpairment: An exploratory study. Child Language Teaching &Therapy, 16, 255–284.

Justice, L. M., Chow, S. M., Michel, C., Flanigan, K., &Colton, S. (2003). Emergent literacy intervention for vulnerablepreschoolers: Relative effects of two approaches. AmericanJournal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 320–332.

Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (1999). Vygotskian theory and itsapplication to language assessment: An overview for speech-language pathologists. Contemporary Issues in CommunicationScience and Disorders, 26, 111–118.

Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2000). Enhancing children’s printand word awareness through home-based parent intervention.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 257–269.

Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2002). Use of storybook readingto increase print awareness in at-risk children. American Journalof Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 17–29.


Justice, L. M., Invernizzi, M. A., & Meier, J. (2002). Designingand implementing an early literacy screening protocol: Sugges-tions for the speech-language pathologist. Language, Speech,and Hearing Services in Schools, 33, 84–101.

Kaderavek, J. N., & Justice, L. M. (2002). Shared storybookreading as an intervention context: Promises and potentialpitfalls. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11,395–406.

Kaderavek, J. N., & Justice, L. M. (2004). Embedded–explicitemergent literacy intervention II: Goal selection and implemen-tation in the early childhood classroom. Language, Speech, andHearing Services in Schools, 35, 212–228.

Kaderavek, J. N., & Sulzby, E. (1998, November). Low versushigh orientation towards literacy in children. Paper presented atthe annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, San Antonio, TX.

Kaderavek, J. N., & Sulzby, E. (2000). Narrative productions bychildren with and without specific language impairment: Oralnarratives and emergent readings. Journal of Speech, Language,and Hearing Research, 43, 34–49.

Katims, D. S. (1991). Emergent literacy in early childhood specialeducation: Curriculum and instruction. Topics in Early Child-hood Special Education, 11, 69–84.

Katims, D. S., & Pierce, P. L. (1995). Literacy-rich environmentsand the transition of young children with special needs. Topicsin Early Childhood Special Education, 15, 219–234.

Lahey, M. (1988). Language disorders and language development.New York: Macmillan.

Liberman, A. M. (1999). The reading researcher and the readingteacher need the right theory of speech. Scientific Studies ofReading, 3, 95–111.

Liberman, I. Y., & Liberman, A. M. (1990). Whole languageversus code emphasis: Underlying assumptions and theirimplications for reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 40,51–77.

Linder, T. (1993). Transdisciplinary play-based intervention:Guidelines for developing a meaningful curriculum for youngchildren. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Lombardino, L. J., Riccio, C. A., Hynd, G. W., & Pinheiro, S.B. (1997). Linguistic deficits in children with reading disabili-ties. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 6, 71–78.

Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., Anthony, J. S., & Barker, T. A.(1998). Development of phonological sensitivity in 2- to 5-year-old children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 294–311.

Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Peterson, O. (1988). Effects of anextensive program for stimulating phonological awareness inpreschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263–284.

Magnusson, E., & Naucler, K. (1990). Reading and spelling inlanguage disordered children—linguistic and metalinguisticprerequisites: Report on a longitudinal study. Clinical Linguisticsand Phonetics, 4, 49–61.

Magnusson, E., & Naucler, K. (1993). The development oflinguistic awareness in language-disordered children. FirstLanguage, 13, 93–111.

Majsterek, D. J., Shorr, D. N., & Erion, V. L. (2000). Promotingearly literacy through rhyme detection activities during HeadStart circle time. Child Study Journal, 30, 143–151.

McCormick, C. E., & Mason, J. M. (1986). Interventionprocedures for increasing preschool children’s interest in andknowledge about reading. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.),Emergent literacy (pp. 90–115). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

McCormick, C. E., & Mason, J. M. (1989). Fostering reading forHead Start children with little books. In J. Allen & J. M. Mason(Eds.), Risk makers, risk takers, risk breakers: Reducing therisks for young literacy learners (pp. 154–177). Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.

Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (1993). Access to print for childrenof poverty: Differential effects of adult mediation and literacy-enriched play settings on environmental and functional printtasks. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 95–122.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.(2002).

Norris, J. A., & Damico, J. S. (1990). Whole language in theoryand practice: Implications for language intervention. Language,Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 21, 212–220.

Notari-Syverson, A., O’Connor, R. E., & Vadasy, P. (1998).Ladders to literacy: A preschool activity book. Baltimore: PaulH. Brookes.

O’Connor, R. E., Jenkins, J. R., Leicester, N., & Slocum, T. A.(1993). Teaching phonological awareness to young children withlearning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 532–546.

O’Connor, R. E., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadasy, P. (1996).Ladders to literacy: The effects of teacher-led phonologicalactivities for kindergarten children with and without disabilities.Exceptional Children, 63, 117–130.

O’Connor, R. E., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadasy, P. (1998).Ladders to literacy: A kindergarten activity book. Baltimore:Paul H. Brookes.

Paul, R. (2001). Language disorders from infancy to adolescence:Assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

Paulson, L. H., Noble, L. A., Jepson, S., & van den Pol, R.(2001). Building early literacy and language skills. Longmont,CO: Sopris West.

Pearson, P. D. (2002, August). Closing the gap: Big ideas fromthe summer institute. Paper presented at the Center for theImprovement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA) SummerInstitute, Ann Arbor, MI.

Pellegrini, A. D., Galda, L., Jones, I., & Perlmutter, J. (1995).Joint reading between mothers and their Head Start children:Vocabulary development in two text formats. DiscourseProcesses, 19, 441–463.

Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., & Mason, J. M. (1996). Longitudi-nal effects of early literacy concepts on reading achievement: Akindergarten intervention and five-year follow-up. Journal ofLiteracy Research, 28, 173–195.

Rogoff, B. (1991). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive develop-ment in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

Roth, F. P., & Speckman, N. J. (1986). Narrative discourse:Spontaneously generated stories of learning-disabled andnormally achieving students. Journal of Speech-Language-Hearing Pathology, 51, 8–23.

Russell, S. R., & Kaderavek, J. N. (1993). Alternative models forcollaboration. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services inSchools, 24, 76–78.

Saint-Laurent, L., Giasson, J., & Couture, C. (1998). Emergentliteracy and intellectual disabilities. Journal of Early Interven-tion, 21, 267–281.

Scarborough, H., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy ofreading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14, 245–302.

Scarborough, H. S. (1989). Prediction of reading disability fromfamilial and individual differences. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 81, 101–108.


Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Early identification of children at riskfor reading difficulties: Phonological awareness and some otherpromising predictors. In B. K. Shapiro, P. J. Accardo, & A. J.Capute (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of thespectrum (pp. 75–199). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Schneider, W., Roth, E., & Ennemoser, M. (2000). Trainingphonological skills and letter knowledge in children at risk fordyslexia: A comparison of three kindergarten interventionprograms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 284–295.

Senechal, M., Thomas, E., & Monker, J. (1995). Individualdifferences in 4-year-old children’s acquisition of vocabularyduring storybook reading. Journal of Educational Psychology,87, 218–229.

Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventingreading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Speece, D. L., Roth, F. P., Cooper, D. H., & de la Paz, S.(1999). The relevance of oral language skills to early literacy: Amultivariate analysis. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 167–190.

Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading:Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: GuilfordPress.

Stothard, S. E., Snowling, M. J., Bishop, D. V. M., Chipcase, B.B., & Kaplan, C. A. (1998). Language-impaired preschoolers: Afollow-up into adolescence. Journal of Speech, Language, andHearing Research, 41, 407–418.

Stuart, M. (1995). Prediction and qualitative assessment of five-and 6-year-old children’s reading: A longitudinal study. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 65, 287–296.

Sulzby, E. (1985). Children’s emergent reading of favoritestorybooks: A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly,20, 458–481.

Taylor, N. E., Blum, I. H., & Logsdon, D. M. (1986). Thedevelopment of written language awareness: Environmentalaspects and program characteristics. Reading Research Quarterly,21, 132–149.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994).Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 276–286.

Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L., & Nesdale, A. R. (1988).Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 23, 134–158.

Ukrainetz, T. A., Cooney, M. H., Dyer, S. K., Kysar, A. J., &Harris, T. J. (2000). An investigation into teaching phonemicawareness through shared reading and writing. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 15, 331–355.

van Kleeck, A., Gillam, R. B., & McFadden, T. U. (1998). Astudy of classroom-based phonological awareness training forpreschoolers with speech and/or language disorders. AmericanJournal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7, 65–76.

Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (2001, March). Earlyintervention can reduce the incidence of “reading disability.”Paper presented at the Early Literacy Instruction for Children atRisk: Research Based Solutions, Ann Arbor, MI.

Watkins, R. V., & Bunce, B. H. (1996). Natural literacy: Theoryand practice for preschool intervention programs. Topics inEarly Childhood Special Education, 16, 191–212.

Watson, L. R., Layton, T. L., Pierce, P. L., & Abraham, L. M.(1994). Enhancing emergent literacy in a language preschool.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 136–145.

Westby, C. E. (1990). The role of the speech-language pathologistin whole language. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services inSchools, 21, 228–237.

Westby, C. E. (1999). Assessing and facilitating text comprehen-sion. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kahmi (Eds.), Language andreading disabilities (pp. 154–221). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Whitehurst, G. J., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Payne, A. C.,Crone, D. A., & Fischel, J. (1994). Outcomes of an emergentliteracy intervention in Head Start. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 86, 542–555.

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. (2001). Emergent literacy:Development from prereaders to readers. In S. Neuman & D.Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 11–30). New York: Guilford.

Whitehurst, G. J., Zevenbergen, A. A., Crone, D. A., Schultz,M. D., Velting, O. N., & Fischel, J. E. (1999). Outcomes of anemergent literacy intervention from Head Start through secondgrade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 261–272.

Woodruff, G., & McGonigel, M. (1988). The transdisciplinarymodel. In J. Jordan, J. Gallagher, P. Hutinger, & M. Karnes(Eds.), Early childhood special education: Birth to three (pp.164–181). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Received February 10, 2003Accepted July 25, 2003DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2004/020)

Contact author: Laura Justice, 242 Ruffner Hall, Curry Schoolof Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22904.E-mail: [email protected]

Documents

Embedded-Explicit Emergent Literacy Intervention I