Download pdf - Relationships between parent‐teaching activities and emergent literacy in preschool children

This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 24 October 2014, At: 20:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Child Development and CarePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

Relationships between parent‐teaching activities andemergent literacy in preschool childrenMichelle Haney a & Jacqueline Hill aa Charter School of Education and Human Sciences , Berry College , Mount Berry, GA30149‐5019, USAPublished online: 02 Aug 2007.

To cite this article: Michelle Haney & Jacqueline Hill (2004) Relationships between parent‐teaching activities and emergentliteracy in preschool children, Early Child Development and Care, 174:3, 215-228, DOI: 10.1080/0300443032000153543

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443032000153543

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0300443032000153543

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443032000153543

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Early Child Development and Care

, 2004Vol. 174(3), pp. 215–228

ISSN 0300–4430 (print)/ISSN 1476–8275 (online)/04/010215–14© 2004 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/0300443032000153543

Relationships between parent-teaching activities and emergent literacy in preschool children

Michelle Haney

*

& Jacqueline Hill

Charter School of Education and Human Sciences, Berry College, Mount Berry, GA 30149–5019, USA

Taylor and Francis LtdGECD031047.sgm

(Received 1 July 2003)

10.1080/0300443032000153543Early Child Development and Care0300-4430 (print)/1476-8275 (online)Original Article2004Taylor & Francis Ltd17410000002004MichelleHaneyCharter School of Education and Human SciencesBerry CollegeMount BerryGA 30149—[email protected]

Research indicates that both home literacy activities and direct instruction of reading skills promotereading development. The current study investigates how parent-led direct teaching activitiesimpact emergent literacy. Preschool children (

n

= 47) were administered subtests from the Test ofEarly Reading Ability-3 and the Kaufman Survey of Early Academic and Language Skills. In addi-tion, parents responded to a questionnaire about direct teaching of literacy activities implementedwithin the home. The majority of parents reported directly teaching their children literacy skills(86%), particularly letter names (71%) and sounds (65%). Fewer parents reported directly teachingprinting letters (45%), writing words (29%), reading words (26%), or reading stories (26%). Atrend emerged in which children receiving any direct instruction scored higher on most emergentliteracy tasks. However, statistical significance was only found in a few areas including direct teach-ing of alphabet knowledge and writing words. Implications for family literacy and for future researchare discussed.

Keywords:

Family literacy; Preschool; Teaching reading

Introduction

The process of becoming literate begins long before a child enters a formal educationenvironment. An understanding of activities most effective for facilitating the acqui-sition of emergent literacy skills can serve to enhance literacy outcomes for typicallydeveloping children, as well as to prevent reading difficulties for children who are atrisk. Achieving reading fluency by third grade is critical because after the third gradechildren must read material in order to learn academic content (Adams, 1990). Inaddition, addressing literacy development of young children is paramount due to theMatthew Effect (Stanovich, 1986), which refers to the tendency of children who have

*

Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 20:

11 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

216

M. Haney & J. Hill

lower reading skills to continue to fall further behind their chronological peers as theirpeers build upon existing literacy skills. Furthermore, because the family is the earliestlearning environment, research addressing family literacy opportunities optimizes achild’s framework of early literacy knowledge and skills. Ultimately, research onemergent literacy skills of young children and family literacy experiences contributeto the prevention of reading failure. Specifically, research is needed to empowerparents and caregivers of young children to best support the development of emergentliteracy in their young children. In addition, such research is likely to have an addi-tional benefit of strengthening current and future parent–school liaisons, which willenable parents and teachers to work together to promote optimal learning.

Theoretical framework

Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of child development is a useful theoretical frame-work for exploring the processes by which families pass along skills, knowledge, andvalues of literacy through social interactions. In addition, Vygotsky’s concept of thezone of proximal development (ZPD), the point at which a child can master a taskonly with assistance, may be used to investigate parent–child literacy interactions. Achild’s caregiver is often most familiar with the child’s current skills, and thus cantarget instruction in such a way as to correspond with the child’s ZPD. A caregiver’simplementation of this form of facilitated learning ultimately provides for optimallearning experiences. Thus, it is not surprising that the role of a caregiver in gauginga child’s ZPD and providing the necessary support to facilitate learning and masteryin literacy activities has been an important topic in emergent literacy research (Au,1998; Tracey & Young, 2002).

The importance of directed instruction by a caregiver is also displayed in the ideasof Jerome Bruner (1986), who used the term scaffolding to describe a type of instruc-tion in which caregivers not only assist children by providing them with a supportivelearning environment, but also modify instruction so that it corresponds to a child’scurrent level of competence. Barbara Rogoff

et al.

(1993) labeled this idea as guidedparticipation, and further demonstrated that this type of teaching by caregiverscrosses both cultural and ethnic boundaries. Both of these theories have been used tocreate effective parent-teaching literacy programs. For instance, Neuman (1997)reported significant literacy gains using a structured guided participation strategy toencourage adolescent mothers to engage their young children in literacy teachingactivities.

A number of other studies have provided evidence indicating a reliable relationshipbetween family literacy environment and literacy skill development (for example, Bus

et al.

, 1995; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994). However, further research is needed tospecifically address how parents work with their children. For example, parents whofrequently read to their children do not necessarily report directly teaching themspecific literacy skills (Senechal

et al.

, 1998). These studies call for additional inves-tigations into parent–child literacy interactions, and the differential outcomes thatmay be dependent upon different teaching activities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 20:

11 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Parent teaching and emergent literacy

217

Direct parent teaching of literacy skills

Parent-teaching of literacy skills is an important contributor to the development ofemergent literacy skills in young children. While storybook reading has been foundto be an important predictor of later reading skills (review of this literature byAdams, 1990; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994; and meta-analysis by Bus

et al.

,1995), more direct parent literacy teaching experiences appear to play an importantrole in literacy development as well. From research in literacy skill acquisition foryoung children, Senechal

et al.

(1998) concluded that “story book reading andparent teaching may be independent experiences with different links to early skills,and ultimately, to reading acquisition.” Furthermore, parents differ in their theoriesabout early literacy instruction (DeBarshe

et al.

, 2000), the extent to which they areinvolved in literacy teaching activities with their child (Evans

et al.

, 2000), and thetypes of literacy activities in which they engage their child (Evans

et al.

, 2000;Senechal & LeFevre, 2001). Research suggests that these different parental factorsmay be associated with different literacy outcomes for young children (DeBarshe

etal.

, 2000; Evans

et al.

, 2000; Senechal & LeFevre, 2001; Senechal

et al.

, 1998;Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998).

Using a factor score (emergent literacy variable) composed of alphabet knowledge,invented spelling, and decoding skills, Senechal and LeFevre (2001) investigated theeffects of different patterns of parental literacy activities on the development of emer-gent literacy skills. Parents of children in the ‘high teach–low read’ group reportedfrequently teaching literacy skills but infrequently engaging in book reading with theirchild, while parents of children in the ‘low teach–high read’ group reported infre-quently teaching literacy skills but frequently engaging in book reading with theirchild. These two groups of children demonstrated different trajectories of readingskill development from grades one to three. For example, children in the high teach–low-read group performed better on achievement test scores at the beginning of firstgrade. However, this advantage disappeared by grade three, at which time children inthe low teach–high read group outperformed those in the high teach–low read group.Children receiving high levels of both direct teaching from parents and frequent expo-sure to book reading outperformed all groups by grade three. From these results,Senechal and LeFevre (2001) concluded that “emergent literacy skills required forreading acquisition are related to children’s formal experiences with literacy affordedwhen their parents teach them to read and print words” (pp. 49–50).

Current study

This study builds upon the current literature by investigating the relationship betweendifferent types of parent reported teaching activities and the development of specificemergent literacy outcomes. Rather than utilizing a factor score comprised of severaldifferent literacy skills, this study considered the effects of parent-teaching on threedistinct emergent literacy skills. The emergent literacy skills assessed in this researchincluded vocabulary, concepts of print, and beginning reading knowledge (including

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 20:

11 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

218

M. Haney & J. Hill

knowledge of letter names, letter sounds, and reading two or three letter words).Specifically addressing the impact of parent-led teaching activities on different liter-acy skills has the potential to enhance accurate skill assessment and educational plan-ning. If certain teaching practices are found associated with particular literacystrengths, recommendations for parents to assist their children with literacy develop-ment can be tailored to individual child needs and skill levels.

These three skills were selected based upon their contribution to the developmentof literacy skills. For example, the development of receptive and expressive vocabu-lary is important to the development of later reading skills (Adams, 1990), and youngchildren are actively increasing their vocabulary. By age four children learn an averageof five new words per day (Read, 1971). Furthermore, what parents do and say duringearly years of life predicts later language skills (Hart & Risely, 1995). Similar to vocab-ulary, concepts of print are beginning literacy skills that emerge prior to the beginningof formal reading instruction. Even before a child learns to decode words, theydevelop an understanding of the function and structure of print (Clay, 1972; Searfoss& Readence, 1994). Alphabet knowledge is another strong predictor of readingachievement (Adams, 1990; Elbro

et al.

, 1998). Furthermore, teaching letter namesand letter sounds is one of the earliest literacy skills generally taught to children(Worden & Boettcher, 1990). In addition to considering the extent to which variousliteracy skills are developed, this study considered the effect of parent-teaching ofspecific skills on these different emergent literacy skills. This study investigated theextent to which parents engaged in a variety of literacy instruction activities, whichincluded teaching letter names, letter sounds, printing letters, printing words, readingwords, and reading stories.

Specifically, the research questions addressed in the current study include thefollowing:

(1) Are parents directly teaching young children literacy skills?(2) What types of skills are parents attempting to teach?(3) Is there a relationship between parent directed teaching activity and literacy

outcome?

Method

Participants.

Children, ages three to five, attending the Child Development Centeron the campus of a private liberal arts college in Northwest Georgia were invited toparticipate in this study. Parents were asked to provide consent for participation andto complete the Family Literacy Survey. Of the ninety-three parents with childrenattending the Child Development Center, fifty-one provided written consent for theirchild to participate in the study and completed the family literacy survey (55% partic-ipation). However, several of the children were not able to complete all of the literacytests due to either excessive absences or non-compliance during testing. Overall, datafrom forty-seven children were included in this study. Twenty-five (53%) of the chil-dren were male and twenty-two (47%) were female. The majority of children were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 20:

11 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


219

Caucasian (98%). All children represented in this sample were described as speakersof English as their first language. Parents paid private school tuition for this preschoolprogram and were described by the administrator of this program as primarily middleto upper socioeconomic status.

Materials.

Parents completed the Family Literacy Survey, a twenty-three-itempaper–pencil multiple-choice instrument. Only one item from the survey was used forthis study (refer to Appendix A). Participants were administered a battery of earlyliteracy tests. The tests from the battery used to address questions in the current studyincluded the Vocabulary subtest of the Kaufman Survey of Early Academic andLanguage Skills (K-SEALS) and the Alphabet and Conventions subtests of the Testof Early Reading Ability—Third Edition (TERA-3).

Both the K-SEALS and TERA-3 are standardized and nationally normed instru-ments that can be used to assess emergent literacy skills that are believed to predictfuture reading ability. The Vocabulary subtest of the K-SEALS measures both recep-tive and expressive language skills, in which the child points to (receptive vocabulary)or names (expressive vocabulary) pictures of both objects and actions. The Alphabetsubtest of the TERA-3 measures a child’s knowledge of letter names, letter sounds,and beginning basic reading skills (i.e

.

, reading the word ‘dog’). The Conventionssubtest of the TERA-3 measures a child’s understanding of various conventions ofEnglish print, such as book handling and knowledge of punctuation and spelling.

Both the test administration manuals published with the K-SEALS (Kaufman &Kaufman, 1993) and TERA-3 (Reid

et al.

, 2001) provide evidence of adequatepsychometric properties. The K-SEALS measured reliability through the split-halfmeasure of internal consistency and the test-rest measure of stability. Reliabilitymeasures for the TERA-3 included Cronbach’s coefficient alpha measure of internalconsistency, the test–retest measure of stability, and the interscorer differences assess-ment of reliability. Measures of reliability for both instruments fell within the ‘mini-mally reliable’ (0.83) to ‘most desirable’ (0.9 or greater) range. Furthermore, the K-SEALS manual provides evidence of adequate construct, concurrent, and predictivevalidity, while the TERA-3 manual reports sufficient content, construct, and crite-rion-predictive validity. Although analyses of the psychometric quality of the secondedition were available, there is a dearth of research evaluating the most recent editionof the Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA-3).

Procedures

Parents of each child were given a packet including a consent form, a brief descriptionof the early literacy study, and the Family Literacy Survey. Staff members at the ChildDevelopment Center oversaw the distribution and collection of surveys and consentforms. Four undergraduate students enrolled in a research practica and one graduatestudent administered the subtests to the children at the Child Development Center.All of the student researchers were trained to administer the subtests during several

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 20:

11 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

220

M. Haney & J. Hill

practice sessions. Furthermore, weekly meetings were held in order to address ques-tions about the data collection process. The order in which tests were administeredwas counterbalanced in order to avoid a confounding effect of order of test adminis-tration on test performance. The battery was administered individually to each childduring two testing sessions. Each testing session lasted approximately 25 minutes andoccurred on separate days. Tests were administered based on standardized proce-dures as outlined in the respective test manuals. Testing sessions were discontinuedif the child refused to participate or appeared uncomfortable with the testing session.

Results

Examination of the descriptive statistics from the family literacy survey revealed thatthe majority of parents reported directly teaching their children literacy skills (86%),particularly letter names (71%) and sounds (65%). Fewer parents reported directlyteaching printing letters (45%), writing words (29%), reading words (26%), or read-ing stories (26%). Refer to Table 1 for the frequencies and percentages of parentsthat implemented each teaching activity in the home. Table 2 contains means andstandard deviations for each of the literacy subtests. The participants’ test scoreswere normally distributed. Furthermore, based on the national norms published inthe test manuals, the participants scored within the average range on both standard-ized tests. Similarly, the standard deviations for all three tests were consistent withthat of the normative standardization samples from which the test norms werederived.

Using an alpha level of 0.05, an independent-samples

t

-test was performed to assessthe effect of various parent-led teaching activities on emergent literacy (presented inTable 3), which was measured through the Vocabularly subtest from the K-SEALSand the Alphabet and Conventions subtests from the TERA-3. The majority of rela-tionships between mean subtest scores and teaching activities were found not to bestatistically significant. However, the Vocabulary subtest of the K-SEALS as a func-tion of whether parents taught literacy skills in the home approached statistical signif-icance (

p

= 0.07). Similarly, the TERA-3 Conventions subtest as a function of directteaching of reading stories also approached statistical significance (

p

= 0.08).Two relationships were found to be statistically significant. The first statistically

significant relationship was found between the participants’ mean Vocabulary subtestscores and teaching alphabet sounds, (

t

(45) = 2,

p

< 0.05). This finding suggests thatthose participants who were taught alphabet sounds tended to score higher on theVocabulary subtest of the K-SEALS (mean = 110.5, standard deviation = 7.8) thanthose not exposed to this teaching activity in the home (mean = 103.6, standard devi-ation = 13.3). In addition, the relationship between the participants’ mean Alphabetsubtest scores and writing words was found to be statistically significant (

t

(41) = 2.3,

p

<0.05). These results indicate that the participants whose parents taught them howto write words tended to score higher on the Alphabet subtest of the TERA-3 (mean= 12.3, standard deviation = 3.4) than those whose parents did not implement thisteaching activity in the home (mean = 10.0, standard deviation = 3.0).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 20:

11 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


221

Table 1. Frequencies and percentages for teaching activities

Teaching activity Frequency Percentage

Teaches literacy skills at homeYes 44 86.3No 7 13.7

Teaches letter namesDon’t know or no answer 1 2.0Yes 36 70.6No 14 27.5

Teaches letter soundsDon’t know or no answer 1 2.0Yes 33 64.7No 17 33.3

Teaches printing lettersDon’t know or no answer 1 2.0Yes 23 45.1No 27 52.9

Teaches writing wordsDon’t know or no answer 1 2.0Yes 15 29.4No 35 68.6

Teaches reading wordsDon’t know or no answer 1 2.0Yes 13 25.5No 37 72.5

Teaches reading storiesDon’t know or no answer 1 2.0Yes 13 25.5No 37 72.5

Table 2. Means and standard deviations of literacy subtests

Subtest

n

Mean Standard deviation

Vocabulary (K-SEALS) 46 108.6 10.2Alphabet (TERA-3) 44 10.8 3.3Conventions (TERA-3) 44 9.3 1.7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 20:

11 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

222

M. Haney & J. Hill

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and

t

values for each subtest as a function of the type of teaching activities implemented

Teaching activity

n


t

Teaches literacy skills at home

Vocabulary (K-SEALS) 1.9Yes 40 109.7 9.5No 6 101.5 13.1

Alphabet (TERA-3) 0.7Yes 39 10.9 3.2No 5 9.8 4.3

Conventions (TERA-3) 0.7Yes 39 10.9 3.2No 5 9.8 4.3

Teaches letter names




Teaches letter sounds

Vocabulary (K-SEALS) 2.2*Yes 31 110.5 7.8No 14 103.6 13.3



Teaches printing letters




Teaches writing words


Alphabet (TERA-3) 2.3*Yes 15 12.3 3.4No 28 10.0 3.0


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 20:

11 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


223

Discussion

Research question 1: are parents directly teaching young children literacy skills

? Consis–tent with the existing literature, the current study indicates a trend in which parentreports of engaging in some form of teaching of literacy activities were related tohigher scores in all literacy areas including vocabulary, beginning reading skills(alphabet knowledge and two or three letter words), and concepts about print. Simi-larly, Leseman (1998) concluded from the investigation of family literacy factorsinfluencing reading development that “besides mere opportunity (i.e., exposure),measures of the co-constructive quality of literacy interactions also add to the predic-tion” (p. 331). Likewise, Evans

et al.

(2000) found that even when parental educationand child ability (as measured by a standardized intelligence test) were held constant,reports of parental teaching activities were associated with higher scores on tests ofalphabet knowledge and phonological sensitivity than were parent reports of mereexposure to book reading.

In spite of this study’s homogeneous sample, consistently higher scores on all earlyliteracy skills were demonstrated for children who received some type of parent-teach-ing of literacy skills. This finding of consistently higher scores for children receivingparent-teaching at home has implications for the domains of parent-training,preschool activities involving family literacy, and early intervention. These resultsindicate that programs targeted at optimizing the development of young children,

Table 3.

Continued

Teaching activity

n


t

Teachers reading words

Vocabulary (K-SEALS)

−

0.1Yes 13 108.1 7.1No 32 108.5 11.4


Conventions (TERA-3)

−

0.2Yes 13 9.2 1.8No 30 9.4 1.7

Teaches reading stories

Vocabulary (K-SEALS)

−

0.6Yes 13 106.9 5.8No 32 108.9 11.6

Alphabet (TERA-3) –0.3Yes 13 10.6 3.6No 30 10.9

Conventions (TERA-3) –1.8Yes 13 8.6 1.8No 30 9.6 1.7

*

p

< 0.05.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 20:

11 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

224

M. Haney & J. Hill

such as early intervention programs and preschools, should encourage parents tofacilitate the development of emergent literacy in their young children by teachingliteracy skills.

Research question 2: what types of skills are parents attempting to teach?

Direct teachingof letter names and letter sounds was the most frequently reported literacy teachingactivity by parents. Parents may feel most comfortable with these skills as they mirrorthe kinds of teaching activities presented in educational television programs such as

Sesame Street

. On the other hand, parents may feel ill-equipped to teach other typesof literacy skills, and may be unaware of current early literacy research. Parents mayperceive themselves as ineffective in teaching more complex readings skills to theirchildren (Gettinger & Guetschow, 1998). Furthermore, the boom in early literacyresearch is a fairly recent phenomenon that has shed significant light on the role offactors such as writing experiences, phonological awareness, and environmental printon the development of literacy skills. Parents may draw upon their own childhoodexperiences of learning to read, which probably focused on learning letter names andsounds. Furthermore, because theories about the development of literacy skillsimpact the types of literacy behaviors modeled by parents in the home (Charlesworth

et al.

, 1991; DeBarshe

et al.

, 2000), understanding underlying parental beliefs aboutliteracy may prove useful in intervention programs with a family literacy component.

Research question 3. is there a relationship between parent-directed teaching activity and lit-eracy outcome?

In addition to the general association of parent-teaching with betterdeveloped emergent literacy skills, specific types of parent-teaching activities wereassociated with significant learning outcomes. This study found that children receiv-ing instruction in writing words scored significantly higher on the measure of alphabetknowledge and beginning decoding skills (from TERA-3 Alphabet subtest) thanthose children not receiving such instruction. This finding is consistent with researchindicating that children construct a great deal of knowledge about print and decodingthrough writing activities (Ferreiro, 1990; Teale & Sulzby, 1986). The concept ofwriting to learn about reading was introduced by both Montessori (1966) and Clay(1972). Research analyzing early (invented) spelling of preschool age children (i.e.,Chomsky, 1971; Durkin, 1966; Read, 1971) who had not yet received formal readinginstruction also supported the theory that writing facilitates reading for many chil-dren. It has been proposed that the process of writing teaches children segmentationof script into phonemic units, provides them with an understanding of the concept ofword as a symbolic system for meaning, and provides them with an awareness ofgrammatical rules about the structure of language (Purcell-Gates, 2001; Scholnick,2002; Sliva & Alves-Martins, 2002). Thus, children provided with frequent opportu-nities to explore the connection between oral language and print use experiences toconstruct for themselves knowledge about sound/symbol relationships and alphabetknowledge necessary for reading decoding.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 20:

11 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


225

A more puzzling finding was the association between teaching letter sounds andsignificantly higher vocabulary scores (on the K-SEALS). In interpreting theseresults, it is important to note that over one-half of the parents participating in thisstudy reported teaching their child letter sounds. Thus, many parents who wereengaging in a variety of literacy teaching activities were teaching this specific skill.As a result, there is a considerable amount of overlap between children who werenot taught letter sounds and those who did not receive any form of literacyinstruction. This finding may underscore the significant advantages young childrenexposed to literacy teaching activities in the home have over those without suchexperiences.

That children directly taught ‘reading words’ or ‘reading stories’ did not havesignificantly higher scores on the Alphabet subtest was another interesting finding.This lack of higher scores on the Alphabet subtest may have been due to the fact thatthe Family Literacy Survey did not provide parents with a detailed operational defi-nition for terms including ‘reading words’ and ‘reading stories’. Thus, different teach-ing activities may be reflected by the parent’s endorsement of engaging in thoseteaching activities. For instance, some parents who reported directly teaching wordsmay be teaching a whole language or whole-word approach, in which the child memo-rizes the physical form of a word but does not learn decoding skills. Parents whoreported teaching their children to read stories may have been teaching them tomemorize text through repeated readings.

Limitations of the current study and recommendations for future research

Based on an analysis of the current study, several recommendations for futureresearch endeavors are offered. One limitation of the current study was a potentialselection bias in participation. Conceivably, parents who chose to participate werethose most often engaging in home literacy instruction. Another possible restrictionof this study was the lack of diversity in the sample. Participants were primarilyCaucasian and attended a private preschool located on a college campus. However,as a group, children within our sample scored within the average range on the literacytests suggesting literacy skills similar to nationally representative and randomlyselected samples of children. An additional limitation is related to the possibility thatthose parents who completed the Family Literacy Survey may have tried to presentthemselves in the best possible light by inaccurately reporting or overestimating theirteaching of literacy activities. Thus, the validity of this study’s results may have beencompromised as a result of self-report bias.

A final limitation of this study is associated with this study’s instrumentation. TheFamily Literacy Survey may need revisions to clarify the different instructional meth-ods being assessed. In addition, the Alphabet subtest of the TERA-3 measured multi-ple constructs, including letter names, letter sounds, and beginning reading sills. Inaddition, the Vocabulary subtest of the K-SEALS measured both receptive andexpressive language skills. Therefore, more precise instruments providing a score foreach of these skills would have provided a clearer indication of what types of teaching

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 20:

11 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

226

M. Haney & J. Hill

activities implemented by parents facilitate emergent reading skills. However, itshould be noted that currently there is a paucity of nationally standardized instru-ments to assess emergent literacy skills of preschool children.

In addition to addressing the research questions, these findings are noteworthy inproviding much needed information about a newly revised and potentially usefulassessment and research tool in early literacy development, the TERA-3. A literaturereview revealed few empirical studies utilizing the TERA-3. However, the previousedition, the TERA-2, was used in a many studies addressing emergent literacy.Although our test scores are consistent with the national norms presented in theTERA-3 manual, our qualitative data warrants cautions about several of the subtests.A concern about the Alphabet subtest emerged as we attempted to explain our results.We considered the name of the Alphabet subtest misleading, in that it is betterconceptualized as a test of beginning reading skills rather than simply knowledge ofalphabet letters and sounds as its name suggests. The subtest includes items askingchildren to identify three or four letter words, as well as single letters. In addition, thestimuli for the concepts of print subtest was not very user friendly. We found thematerials to be quite small, and the material not necessarily the most developmentallyappropriate for truly gauging a child’s concepts about print. We were concerned thatknowledge about print concepts may have been confounded with confusing andpoorly constructed test materials.

The use of a longitudinal design in which measures of basic reading skills(including alphabet knowledge), concepts about print, and vocabulary knowledgeare collected through kindergarten and first grade is recommended to clarify thefindings of this study. Previous research suggests a literacy learning trajectory thatis dynamic with time, and associated with early teaching experiences (Senechal &LeFevre, 2001). In addition, it might be helpful to include an assessment ofphonological awareness to consider the effect different parent-teaching activitieshave on the development of this important precursor to reading decoding. Addi-tionally, opportunities to observe and record parents reading to their child in theirnatural home environment, through video tapes and/or audiotapes may be helpfulin addressing possible response bias issues associated with survey data and to elim-inate the chance that parents misinterpret the written questions. However, thereare difficulties with collecting data about parent’s literacy teaching behaviors in anaturalistic setting. For instance, the knowledge that the behaviors are beingrecorded may prompt activities that may not have occurred otherwise.

In addition, it is recommended that this study be replicated with a more diversesample of preschool children and their families. The current study utilizes a popula-tion of children attending a private preschool on a college campus. Replication of thisstudy with children attending other types of preschools (i.e., Head Start, Public Pre-K, programs run by religious organizations) in other regions of the country wouldhelp strengthen the generalizability of findings and to address the impact of regionaland cultural differences on parental literacy teaching practices.

Although many questions remain as to how instruction in specific skill areas resultin specific types of emergent literacy skills, this study is consistent with the existing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 20:

11 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


227

literature supporting home literacy teaching experiences for young children. Adams(1990) concludes from her review of the research:

One irrepressible interpretation is that the likelihood that a child will succeed in the firstgrade depends most of all on how much she or he has already learned about reading beforegetting there—and this interpretation seems soberingly correct (p. 82)

An understanding of how parents contribute to early literacy skills is paramount fordeveloping early education programs that allow each child to maximize her potential.

References

Adams, M. J. (1990)

Learning to read: thinking and learning about print

(Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).Au, K. H. (1998) Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse

backgrounds,

Journal of Literacy Research,

20, 297–310.Bruner, J. S. (1986)

Actual minds: possible worlds

(Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).Bus, A. G., van Ijvendoorn, M. H. & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995) Joint book reading makes for success

in learning to read: a meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy,

Review ofEducational Research,

65, 1–21.Charlesworth, F., Hart, V. & Burns, S. (1991) Kindergarten teachers’ beliefs and practices,

EarlyChild Development and Care,

70, 17–35.Chomsky, C. (1971) Write first, read later,

Childhood Education,

41, 296–299.Clay, M. (1972)

Reading: the patterning of complex behavior

(Auckland, Heinemann).DeBarshe, B. D., Binder, J. C. & Buell, J. (2000)

Early Child Development and Care,

160, 119–131.Durkin, D. (1966)

Children who read early. Two longitudinal studies

(New York, Teachers CollegePress).

Elbro, C., Borstrom, I. & Peterson, D. K. (1998) Predicting dyslexia from kindergarten: theimportance of phonological representation of lexical items,

Reading Research Quarterly,

33,36–57.

Evans, M. A., Shaw, D. & Bell, M. (2000) Home literacy activities and their influence on earlyliteracy skills,

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,

54, 65–75.Ferreiro, E. (1990) Literacy development: psychogenesis, in: Goodman Y. (Ed.)

How childrenconstruct literacy

(Newark, DE, International Reading Association), 12–25.Gettinger, M. & Guetschow, K. W. (1998) Parental involvement in schools: parental and teacher

perceptions of roles, efficacy, and opportunities,

Journal of Research and Development in Educa-tion,

32, 38–51.Hart, B. & Risely, T. R. (1995)

Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young Americanchildren

(Baltimore, MD, Paul H. Brooks).Kaufman, A. S. & Kaufman, N. L. (1993)

Kaufman survey of early academic and language skills:manual

(Circle Pines, MN, American Guidance Services).Leseman, P. P. M. (1998) Home literacy: opportunity, instruction, cooperation, and social-

emotional quality predicting early reading achievement,


33, 294–318.

Montessori, M. (1966)

The secret of childhood

(New York, Ballantine Books).Neuman, S. B. (1997) Guiding young children’s participation in early literacy development: a

family literacy program for adolescent mothers,

Early Child Development and Care,

127–128,119–129.

Purcell-Gates, P. (2001) Emergent literacy Is emerging knowledge of written, not oral, language,

New Directions For Child And Adolescent Development,

92, 7–22.Read (1971) Preschool children’s knowledge of English phonology,

Harvard Educational Review,

41, 1–34.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 20:

11 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

228

M. Haney & J. Hill

Reid, S. K., Hresko, W. P. & Hammill, D. D. (2001)

Test of early reading ability

(3rd edn) (Austin,TX, Pro-ed).

Rogoff, B., Mistry, J., Gonsu, A. & Mosier, C. (1993) Guided participation in cultural activity bytoddlers and caregivers,

Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,

58 (8,Serial No. 235).

Scarborough, H. S. & Dobrich, W. (1994) On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers,

Developmen-tal Review,

14, 245–302.Scholnick, E. K. (2002) Language, literacy, and thought: forming a partnership, in: Amsel & J. P.

Byrnes (Eds)

Language, literacy, and cognitive development

(Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates), 3–23.

Searfoss, L. W. & Readence, J. E. (1994)

Helping children learn to read

(3rd edn) (NeedhamHeights, MA, Allyn and Bacon).

Senechal, M. & LeFevre, J. (2001) Storybook reading and parent teaching: links to language andliteracy development,

New Directions For Child and Adolescent Development,

92, 9–22.Senechal, M., LeFevre, J., Thomas, E. M. & Daley, K. E. (1998) Differential effects of home liter-

acy experiences on the development of oral and written language,


33, 96–116.Silva, C. & Alves-Martins, M. (2002) Phonological skills and writing of presyllabic children,

Read-ing Research Quarterly, 37, 466–483.

Stanovich, K. (1986) Matthew effects in reading. Some consequences of individual differences inthe acquisition of literacy, Reading Research Quarterly, XXI/4, 360–406.

Teale, W. & Sulzby, E. (1986) Emergent literacy: writing and reading (Norwood, NJ, Ablex).Tracy, D. H. & Young, J. W. (2002) Mothers’ helping behaviors during children’s at-home oral-

reading practice: effects on children’s reading ability, children’s gender, and mother’s educa-tional level, Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 729–737.

Whitehurst, G. J. & Lonigan, C. J. (1998) Child development and emergent literacy, Child Devel-opment, 69, 848–872.

Worden, P. E. & Boettcher, W. (1990) Young children’s acquisition of alphabet knowledge, Jour-nal of Reading Behavior, XXII, 277–294.

Appendix A

Question from family literacy survey

Does someone in the home directly teach your child reading skills? _ yes _ noIf yes, what was taught (may choose more than one)?

(a) letter names(b) letter sounds(c) printing letters(d) writing words(e) reading words(f) reading stories

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 20:

11 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014