early literacy practice: strategies for preschool
Post on 01-Jan-2016
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTIONEarly literacy practice: strategies for Preschool. Kathleen J. Marshall, Ph.D. University of South Carolina http:// kjmarshall.wikispaces.com /. Foundations of Literacy: Developmental Model. 0-15 mos = Preliteracy ( prelanguage /nonverbal) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Early literacy practice: strategies for PreschoolKathleen J. Marshall, Ph.D.University of South Carolinahttp://kjmarshall.wikispaces.com/Foundations of Literacy: Developmental Model0-15 mos = Preliteracy (prelanguage/nonverbal)
12-42 mos = Emergent literacy (literacy development)
36-60 mos = Early literacy (metalanguage development, reading & writing)
Foundations of Literacy: Oral LanguageSchooling effects on languageSyntactic skillsPhonological skillsWord definitions
Foundations of Early LiteracyTeacher effects on languageHigh adult to child ratios (children hear more adult speech) result in better performance on cognitive & language measures.Preschool teachers with more complex sentence structure result in children with more complex sentence structure
Foundations of Literacy: Oral LanguageOral Language and LiteracyLiteracy and human natureReading builds on oral languagePhonological skills - predictor of early readingVocabulary - predictor of later readingThe more words you know, the more you will understandGood readers have better vocabularies
Children with oral language disorders typically have reading problems
Type of Practice for Early Literacy Skills (Dunst, etal, 2006)RTI/Recognition & ResponseDirection of literacy practice in preschool classroomsThe focus of classroom practice is moving from familiarization with language/literacy activities learning to love language and books to prevention of later reading and language difficulties
Emphasis of practiceNaturalistic PracticeDevelopmentally Appropriate PracticesBehavioral PracticeUnified Theory of Practice (Odom & Wolery,2003)
Research in early childhood literacy Research origins
Special educationSpeech and language pathologyReading Early childhood educationEarly childhood special education
ApproachesSynthetic phonicsEmbedded instructionStorybook instructionNo instructionWhat we know!Prediction: Early literacy skills particularly in the area of vocabulary and phonological awareness predict later reading ability (Puolakanaho, Ahonen, Aro, Eklund, Leppanen, Piokkeus, Tolvanen, Torppa, & Lyytinen, 2008; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Torgesen, 1998). Intervention prior to first grade can be very beneficial to young readers by significantly improving performance on early literacy measures and later reading or (Arnold, 1994; McIntosh, Crosbie, Holm, Dodd, & Thomas, 2007; Scanlon, 2005, Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Vadusy, 2006).One challenge butLittle research examines the differential effects of specific interventions for students placed at higher risk for reading disabilities because of developmental delay, SES, or speaking English as a second language (Lonigan, Schatschneider, & Westberg, 2008b). Children who do not perform well in measures of early literacy, regardless of the reason, appear to respond positively to the same body of evidence-based practices (Arnold, 1994; Lonigan, Schatschneider, & Westberg, 2008b; Roberts, 2009).
Another challenge so.Variability of the qualifications and preparation of the preschool faculty (Buysse, & Hollingsword, 2009; Hsieh, Hemmeter, McCollum, & Ostrosky, 2009). Many of the research-based interventions are being translated into relatively specific protocols to facilitate a degree of uniformity in implementation (e.g.,Zucker, Ward, & Justice, 2009).
Projects to review early childhood programs (NELP) National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) by the National Institute for Literacy (2002) . Six skill areas in early literacy as moderate to high predictors of later reading ability: alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid automatic naming (RAN) of numbers, RAN of objects or colors, writing name or writing in general, and phonological memory (remembering spoken information).
NELP. The panel also examined curricula. Could not analyze manyCurricula that included interventions designed to teach specific skill elements with outcomes in related skills, such as teaching letter names and children learning letter names were most successfulShared reading activities that were interactive in nature appeared stronger that those that were not interactive. Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research ProjectPreschool Curriculum Evaluation Research project (PCER)(2002). 14 preschool curricula were reviewed Many current curricula were not evaluated in this project, but of the 14 evaluated, only one curriculum, DLM with Open Court Reading PreK, had significant impact on measures of reading, phonological awareness, and language.
Problem what to use for tier 1?Although many sources identify the necessary underpinnings and elements of evidence-based curricula, few sites will recommend specific programs few evidence-supported curricula existWhat Works Clearinghouse (www.whatworks.org) currently lisst a few categories of instruction as evidence-based (e.g. interactive shared reading, phonological awareness training) but very few curricula. Other research sites focused on early literacy, such as the Center for Early Literacy Learning (http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org/), summarize and conduct research on general instructional categories or activities rather than specific curriculaOther curriculum options?Many preschool curricula not evaluated. Many of these curricula are being used in preschools across the countrystate-wide program evaluations based on recommendations of the NRP or the ECLP (e.g., Imagine-It : SRA/McGraw Hill, 2007) little available curriculum-specific experimental or quasi-experimental research. Supplemental or specialized curriculaNELP: 83 studies that examined the effects of code-based programs on measures of early literacy (Lonigan, Schatschneider,, & Westberg, 2008b).positive effects of programs offering specific instruction in phonological awareness on early and later literacy skills. Much of the research continues to focus on children at kindergarten age or higher (Horn, Stoolmiller, & Chard, 2008; Kamps, Abbott, Greenwood, Wills, Veerkamp, & Kauffman, 2008: Simmons, Coyne, Kwok, McDonagh, Ham, & Kameenui, 2008),neither age, nor SES, nor other risk factors appear to ameliorate the effects of code-based interventions on later reading performance (Lonigan, Schatschneider,, & Westberg, 2008b).
Importance of explicit programsthe most directive programs with the most explicit code-emphasis orientation were the most effective in increasing early literacy skillsexplicit programs were more effective with the lowest achieving childrenchildren showed improvement mainly in the skills they were taught
Supplemental Curricula with evidence base preschool/kindergartenLindamood Bell Learning ProgramJustice and Pullen (2003) Ladders to Literacy (Notari-Syverson, et al, 1998; OConnor et al., 1988) Phonemic Awareness in Young Chidlren (Adams, Foorman, Lundberg & Beeler, 1998) Road to the Code: Aprogra of Early LIteracy Activities to Develop Phonological Awareness (Blachman, Ball, Black, & Tangel, 200)Sound Foundations (Byrne, & Fielding-Barnsley, 1991).
Supplemental curricula with evidence baseKindergarten children (Kamps, et.al, 2008) Reading Mastery (1995 Edition)Early Intervention Reading (Mathes & Torgeson, 2005)ReadWell (Sprick, Howard, & Fidanque, 1998
Supplemental alternative with evidenceHeadsprout Early Reading curriculum, listed recently by the What Works Clearinghouse as a program with potentially positive effects for preschoolers in areas of oral language and print knowledge. The program is designed for kindergarten students, but the supporting research was conducted with preschool children (Hoffstettler, 2005)
Shared Reading and Embedded InstructionShared reading is the hallmark of the early literacy experience at the preschool levelgenerally accepted as an important practice for early literacy classrooms, few studies with student outcome measures (Lonigan, Schatschneider,, & Westberg, 2008b)little standardization in the practice. Considerations for shared readingRecent research provides some guidelines on how to read books to maximize positive outcomes and what types of books can target specific skills (e.g., Justice & Pullen, 2003). Price, Kleeck, and Huberty (2009) found that when reading expository texts to their young children, the parents talked more, there were more parent/child verbal exchanges, and parents use a much more diverse vocabulary shared readingparents gave the students twice as much feedback and verbal acknowledgement in the expository reading condition. Roberts (2009) measured the effects of storybook reading on the vocabulary of young children who were English Language Learners. Children were read to by their parents in their native language, and by teachers in English. All students experienced both conditions and, in each condition, storybook reading resulted in significant vocabulary gains in both languages.
Characteristics of shared readingShared reading activities that are interactive in are more highly associated with positive outcomes in vocabulary measures than reading that is not interactive (Lonigan, Schatschneider,, & Westberg, 2008b ; What Works Clearinghouse). Although interactive storybook reading is loosely defined, some strategies, like dialogic reading (Whitehurst et al, 1998), include a set of prescribed steps and procedural recommendations. The dialogic reading strategy is identified as an evidence-based practice in many studies and summaries of interactive storybook reading (Isbell, Sobol, Lindauer & Lowrance, 2004; Justice & Pullen, 2003; What Works Clearninghouse). Dialogic Reading (Whitehurst et al, 1998):Steps for teachers:P: Prompts the child to say something about the bookE: Evaluates the childs responseE: Expands the childs responseR: Repeats the initi