q r. . 3...! w. 1...... :3. J in”... this? a». “as 2! 7...?! z . 5.3.... . . 3....... 934m... 2...... . cad. ... mun-mm... . . . I... 9...)... .33. .. isltl .\. 51.3.- .5 1:2. 3 3.561 .33.. . In: iahiall II 19:1)!- .. 3.5.1.5219. 3:}! $3... .3 .. .... .1 5.2.33.2... .. it. a... . {537.353. :33. inf-.33-)! 5 Qt i31ill‘.‘.lp‘. O . . 313 g 4.3.7:... 3 53.91.??? . Mu?! ti haw“. 3.1.... 3...... a... a... .31....033... . 1.5. 3 .1331? .30.. .53.... v. . 3...... .. itflflgfl. THESIS ”b This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Preschoolers' Construction of Knowledge about Print: Adult-Child Literacy Interactions in a Head Start Classroom presented by Bonita J. Miller has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Jducalinnal Psychology "30 a... Major professor Date EIZZ" ’3 MSU is an Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE Emma 6/01 c:/ClRC/DateDue.p65-p. 15 PRESCHOOLERS’ CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT PRINT: ADULT-CHILD LITERACY INTERACTIONS IN A HEAD START CLASSROOM By Bonita Jean Miller A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology 2002 ABSTRACT PRESCHOOLERS’ CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT PRINT: ADULT-CHILD LITERACY INTERACTIONS IN A HEAD START CLASSROOM By Bonita Jean Miller The purpose of this study was to examine how adult—child literacy interactions using finger point reading with books and familiar oral texts help young children become familiar with reading processes (where to look when reading), the symbolic nature of print (message quality of print) and the relationship of speech and print (word location). Finger point reading was a central feature of the adult-led literacy activity settings, one using pattern book texts and the other familiar songs and rhymes dictated by the children and written on wall charts. The participants were 25 preschool children in two sessions of a Head Start program in a rural town in the Midwest. The children ranged in age from 3 to 5 years old. Discourse and metalanguage indicated statements about word location were highest in the pattern book group and questions about word location were highest in the child-dictated writing group. A high percentage of information giving and nonverbal gestures were used to initiate turns within the interactions and characterized the pattern of discourse in both settings. The Test of Early Reading Ability-II measured an increase in literacy concepts that typically emerge during the preschool years. Change on awareness of reading processes (where to look when reading) was positive for most children in both groups. More children were able to locate initial and final words in a line of print. This work is dedicated to my husband, Cliff, whose encouragement and patience were endless. And to my children, Zach, Jacob, and Brianna, who provided me with technological support and love. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to my committee chair, David Pearson, who provided wonderful feedback and encouragement when the task seemed insurmountable. I wish to thank my committee members whose lives and work were an inspiration to me. Carol Sue initiated me into the program, guided me through several research projects, and provided me with wonderful journal articles which helped to shape my thinking about emergent literacy. Susan Florio-Ruane’s discourse analysis class opened my eyes to a new way of looking at adult-child interactions. Victoria Purcell-Gates’ research with young children and families provided me with inspiration to pursue my interests in literacy issues with low- income children. I am also indebted to my colleagues, Carolee Hamilton and Connie Anderson, for their words of encouragement and prayers. Finally, I want to thank Rosemary Easler who welcomed me into her Head Start classroom and showed me the true meaning of unconditional love for children. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Construction of Knowledge of Print in School Settings Adult-Child Book Reading Interactions Adult-Child Interactions around Writing Overview of Study CHAPTER TWO DEVELOPMENT OF EMERGENT LITERACY CONCEPTS: A REVIEW OF LITERATURE Sources of Children’s Literacy Knowledge: Reading or Writing? The Nature of Adult-Child Interactions during Literacy Activities Finger Point Reading and Print Related Knowledge How Children Gain Literacy Knowledge from Interactions around Print What can be gained from this study? CHAPTER THREE METHODS AND TOOLS OF THE STUDY Site and Participation Procedures Data Collection Data Analysis Summary 11 11 14 16 18 23 25 25 25 34 47 51 CHAPTER FOUR FINGER POINT READING: THE ROLE OF TALK AND TEXT Discourse Analysis: Metalanguage Used in Each Activity Setting Discourse Analysis: Sequential Organization of Discourse Discussion CHAPTER FIVE PARTICIPATION ACROSS TIME Discussion CHAPTER SIX PORTRAITS OF FOCUS CHILDREN Introduction Four Year Old Children Who Made Higher Levels of Change in Knowledge Of Literacy Concepts Children Who Did Not Show Marked Changes in Literacy Knowledge Conclusion CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION Nature of Discourse in Activity Settings: Language Environment Nature of the Activity Settings: Participation The Contextual Nature of Cognitive Changes Questions Raised Limitations Final Comments APPENDICES Appendix A: Pre, Mid, Post Test Protocol: Book Concepts, Reading Processes, Word Location vi 53 54 6O 79 82 87 90 90 90 95 99 100 101 103 106 108 109 109 112 113 Appendix B: Rubric for Writing Evaluation: Name Writing and Word to Go with the Picture 117 Appendix C: List of Children’s Books used for Finger Point Reading 118 Appendix D: Metalanguage Analysis 119 Appendix E: Participation Categories: AM Group 120 Appendix F: Parent Permission Letter 124 Appendix G: Frequency Chart of Responses to “Where does it say____? 126 Appendix H: Frequency Chart for Pattern Book And Dictated Chart Writing Group Word Location 127 REFERENCES 128 vii Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 LIST OF TABLES Chart of Activity Settings and Measures at Each Interval Descriptive Statistics for AM and PM Groups Categorical Literacy Assessments Metalanguage Frequencies for Phase I, Book Reading Group (AM) Metalanguage Frequencies for Child Dictated Charts and Class Book (PM) Sequence Analysis of There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed A Fly Sequence Analysis of First Reading of Mary Wore Her Red Dress Sequence Analysis of Second Reading of Mary Wore Her Red Dress Sequence Analysis of Third Reading of Mary Wore Her Red Dress Sequence Analysis of Child-Dictated Chart Writing Sequence Analysis of Finger Point Reading of Child-Dictated Chart (Day 2) viii 46 49 50 56 59 61 63 66 67 69 76 () e-e '6 CAPS Italics Underline Nuc. Dep. Emb. Req. Eval. Confirm LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS Researcher Child overlapping speech rapid uptake and quick speech paralinguistic moves elongated vowel within word long pause rising intonation 1 second pause The rest of the page was read stressed pitch words of the text being sung words of text being spoken Nuclear Dependent Embedded Initiating move Response move Follow-up move Request Evaluation Confirmation ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to investigate how it is that young children develop an awareness of print concepts and reading and writing processes in preschool settings. Although we know many young children construct their understandings of reading processes, the symbolic nature of print, and the relationship of speech and print during the years prior to formal reading instruction, little is known about the language input of adults and interactional mechanisms that promote development and confirmation of their hypotheses about the relationship of speech and print. Finger point reading of text was a central feature of the adult-led literacy activities introduced in two groups of preschool children in a Head Start classroom. Ehri and Sweet (1991) defined finger point reading as an advanced form of pretend reading in which the child points to the words while reciting the text from memory. As the participant/researcher, I modeled finger point reading of texts and encouraged children’s independent or assisted participation in finger point reading in both activity settings. I used different text sources in the two activity settings in order to study possible differences in changes of children’s thinking about print and print related processes associated with the two activity structures: (a) repeated reading of pattern book texts and (b) participation in child-dictated writing activities with an adult and increased opportunity to explore independent writing processes. I introduced different corresponding free play activities to each group. The book reading activity setting had books on tapes, flannel figures and stick puppets available as props for retelling the stories. The child-dictated writing activity setting had a writing table available during free play. Teacher-led finger point reading of large texts is a common activity in kindergarten and first classrooms. According to Ehri and Sweet’s (1991) review, finger point reading of texts helps children to understand how print is structured and how text is read, and it nurtures the development of word reading abilities and movement into independent reading. The underlying ability to match voice with print during finger point reading was linked to phoneme awareness, according to an earlier study by Morris (1983). More current research (Uhry, 1999) examined correlates of accurate finger point reading and found significant relationships between alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness and invented spelling of kindergartners. Although links between finger point reading and other literacy skills have been studied, the benefits of engaging preschool age children in assisted finger point reading have not been studied. The purpose of this study was to examine the language environment and interactional mechanisms of two frequently used adult-child literacy interactions with young children: finger point reading of pattern books and finger point reading of child dictated texts drawn from familiar oral sources (language experience) and the impact on individual children’s ideas about reading processes, location of words in the text and other print concepts, such as letter name knowledge associated with these two types of interactions Hiebert (1981) separated concepts of reading into two categories: awareness of what is involved in using print (reading processes), and functions of print in society (purposes of reading). This study examined preschool children’s changing views of several aspects of Hiebert’s first category: (a) where a reader looks when reading, (b) word location skills, (c) directionality of print, ((1) message quality of written language productions and (e) book concepts. Taking into consideration the wide variability of young children’s knowledge of print concepts and reading processes as well as their variability in appropriating information from the environment, I examined the direction of change for individual children in each activity setting at three intervals (pre, mid, post) on each measure. Several assumptions have guided my thinking about the design and analysis in the study. First, I assumed that young children’s knowledge of reading and writing processes are constructed in the context of social settings in which literacy is used for a wide variety of functional purposes. The social settings for learning about literacy include the home, school, church, office or any environment where literacy use can be observed. Second, I assumed that a high percentage of children in the United States know a great deal about reading and writing processes before entering kindergarten, although this knowledge is not distributed evenly across socioeconomic groups. Children from low- income homes begin formal schooling with less knowledge of the concepts needed to succeed in beginning reading instruction than do children from middle and high income families. I made no investigation into the home settings of the participants, all of whom are living in poverty level home environments, because I assumed that school settings will affect young children’s thinking about the nature of reading and writing processes. Although I assumed that school settings can affect student learning, I know that there are some limits to their influence. Head Start preschools have been in existence for over twenty-five years, and a gap between middle and low-income children’s knowledge of concepts of print at the beginning of kindergarten persists. Clearly, more research is needed to assist educators in developing curriculum for students who must depend upon schools to provide the print and language resources needed to succeed in school based literacy learning. Thus, the driving question for this study: for young children living below the poverty line, what literacy activity settings and adult-child interactions around print afford opportunities for children to develop knowledge of reading and writing processes and concepts of print? What is the nature of the language environments, discourse patterns and levels of participation in each literacy activity setting? Construction of Knowledge of Print in School Settings In learning to read, a child must develop an awareness of the symbolic nature of print and how speech maps onto print. Schickedanz (1981) has argued that young children are able to infer the relationship of speech to print when adults act on print in the context of shared literacy activities. Joint construction of print during literacy activities in which adults act as scribes for children’s messages, such as chart stories, sign making, and other everyday uses of print, provides many opportunities for adults to talk explicitly about the message quality of print and conventions of print. Not only do joint writing activities provide opportunities to draw young children’s attention to print, evidence exists of the effectiveness of voice pointing during repeated readings of familiar books and books with simple patterned texts for advancing preschool children’s construction of knowledge of the intentionality of print and how speech maps onto print (Clay, 1975; McCormick & Mason, 1986). Although both types of adult-child interactions are recommended to preschool teachers, the exact nature of each type of interaction has not been studied, nor have comparisons been made as to the impact of each type of activity on key concepts, such as intentionality of print, concepts of word and letter, letter knowledge, print awareness (where a reader looks when reading) (Hiebert, 1981), and the relationship of speech and print. Volumes of evidence exists to support the notion that children from high literate use families, families who use literacy for a variety of purposes, are in the best position to construct literacy knowledge, while children from low-literate use homes are afforded fewer opportunities to develop these concepts (Anderson & Stokes, 1984; Purcell-Gates, 1995). For children from low-income families, who have fewer home experiences with print, early school experiences are essential for the development of the complex of concepts about print. And while many studies have shown that emergent literacy concepts can be learned in school settings, two elements of the early school literacy experiences are claimed to be of critical importance: 1) explicit explanations of the relationship between oral and written language, and 2) many opportunities to engage in the writing and reading of meaningful, connected texts (Purcell-Gates, 1998). In this study, I not only argued for the importance of an increased frequency of literacy interactions between adults and children in preschool settings, but for the value of certain types of interactions that focus children’s attention, explicitly and intentionally, on the relationship between oral and written language codes. Adult-Child Book Reading Interactions Adult-child book reading has long been touted as a significant source of young children’s knowledge about written register (Purcell-Gates, Freppon & McIntyre, 1999), vocabulary development (Ninio, 1980), and other comprehension skills necessary for becoming successful readers (Teale, 1984). Book reading is a common activity in most preschools, although researchers report that fewer books are read or available for book browsing in preschools serving low-income children (McGill-Franzen & Lanford, 1994, Neuman, 1999). Teale (1984) argued that it is not the amount or existence of book reading with children that is of importance, but it is the nature of the book reading event that influences what children take from the book reading event. The significance of the nature of the interactions during book reading on children’s literacy development was also supported by Heath’s (1982, 1984) work with preschool children from low-income communities. Although pattern books have been criticized for their limited language structure, the simplicity and predictability of the texts (McGill-Franzen & Lanford, 1994), books with simple texts are believed to assist young children’s hypothesis testing about relationships between speech and print (Mason, 1980; McCormick & Mason, 1986). Repeated reading of familiar texts is associated with the home experiences of middle- class children; furthermore, multiple exposures to the same text play a role in children’s literacy knowledge acquisition prior to formal instruction (Durkin, 1966; Teale, 1984). Adult-child interactions with familiar books, story retelling activities, and children’s emergent story reading of memorized texts are known to be associated with young children’s literacy knowledge (Teale & Sulzby, 1986). Adult-Child Interactions around Writing Investigations of young children who begin school with extensive knowledge of the symbolic nature of print have provided extensive evidence that both early writing experiences and experiences with books have been frequent home literacy experiences (Bissex, 1980; Durkin, 1966; Ferreiro, 1984). Adult-child interactions during writing activities provide a transparent model of what writers need to know and do. Watching adult writers assists young children’s construction of the symbolic nature of print, since the nature of the activity provides for many opportunities for adults to “think out loud.” Interactions with written language are important for children’s construction of concepts, such as ‘word’ and ‘letter’ (Purcell-Gates, 1998). Olson (1984) has asserted that literate adults treat language as an object and use an elaborate metalanguage, especially for referring to aspects of written language; and that young children’s knowledge of concepts, such as ‘word’, ‘letter’, and ‘sound it makes’, are significantly related to level of parent literacy and young children’s emergent literacy development. Chart story writing is recommended in most early childhood curriculum guides for kindergarten and first-grade classrooms (International Reading Association & National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1999). Although many literate adults voluntarily scribe at a young child’s request, very little is known about the nature of such interactions in home or school settings or about the impact on children’s understandings of the form and functions of print as a result of their participation in this sort of joint text construction. More research is needed to unveil the details of joint participation in writing activities that may create an environment whereby young children can induce the relationship of speech and print. Because writing reflects many of the concepts needed for reading, many researchers have used observations of the processes children employ in emergent writing activities as evidence of children’s evolving knowledge of the written language system. Support for this type of investigation can be found in developmental studies of emergent writing, which provide evidence that many children write before they read (Clay, 1975; Dyson, 1982; Hansen, 1998). Early writing may take many forms, including drawing, scribbling, letter-like forms, and letters, but the use of letters does not imply that children grasp their symbolic function, i.e., that letters stand for other things in the world (Ferreiro, 1984). Observation of the process children use in constructing their drawings or “writing” and how they read what they write is believed to provide a window into their thinking about how the written language system works (Kamberelis & Perry, 1994); thus, observation of children during a writing task was included in this study as a means of assessing children’s changing hypotheses about the forms and functions of print. Overview of the Study In sum, to deepen our understanding of the processes of appropriation of the socially constituted writing system with young children from poverty home settings, the current study was conducted in a Head Start classroom in a rural area in the Midwest, serving an all Caucasian population of children living in poverty households. The participants were drawn from two groups of children, ages 3-5, attending either the morning or afternoon session. As a participant/researcher, I conducted the finger point reading activities during two fifteen minute segments at the beginning of each preschool session and provided literacy props and materials which were added to the free play options. The study was conducted over a six week period in the spring of 2000. I introduced different adult-child interactions and free play activities to each group. The first part of the investigations focused on a description of the language environment and patterns of discourse during two types of joint (adult-child) interactions with print: finger point reading of repeated pattern books, joint construction of written texts from oral sources (familiar rhymes and songs) and the accompanying finger point reading of the texts. Finger point reading was conducted in each activity setting. A second set of investigations revolved around the direction of change in literacy behaviors and knowledge associated with these types of joint interactions and activity settings. Information about the nature and impact of adult-child interactions during joint construction of texts, finger point reading of the jointly constructed texts, and repeated reading of pattern stories using finger point reading has the potential to add significantly to the body of educational research which seeks to evaluate aspects of emergent literacy programs that seek to actively engage young children with print. The outcomes are of particular interest to early childhood educators serving children for whom preschool may be a significant, sometimes the sole, source of interactions with literate adults willing to orient children to print and to guide young children’s participation in literacy knowledge construction. The primary research question is focused on the relationship between context and cognition in different activity task structures. To address the issues linguistic interactional contexts and cognition in educational settings for young children, a series of more specific questions were examined in relation to the different literacy activity structures: 1. What is the nature of the adult language input and the patterns of discourse in the adult-child interactions during two different but related activity structures—joint finger point reading of pattern books and child-dictated writing of familiar rhymes and songs. Two additional questions addressed the issue of the relationship of the activity structures and cognitive development: 2. How does each type of literacy activity setting facilitate children’s understanding of the reading process (orientation to print), the message quality of print, book concepts, and the relationship of speech and print? 3. How do characteristics of the child (e.g., incoming print awareness, age, and interest in literacy activities) affect the nature of their interactions and participation within the activity settings and changes in their understanding of the reading process, the message quality of print, and the relationship between speech and print? The first question was addressed using group data Case studies were used to address the second and third questions. 10 CHAPTER TWO DEVELOPMENT OF EMERGENT LITERACY CONCEPTS: A REVIEW OF LITERATURE I begin with a brief discussion of the emergent literacy perspective for understanding literacy development, drawing on research about home literacy practices and naturalistic investigations of the development of young children’s knowledge of the written language system prior to formal instruction. There is ample evidence that children who enter school with the higher levels of knowledge of print and reading processes have had extensive experiences with book reading and have displayed an interest in writing (Durkin, 1966). What are the relative contributions of early experiences with writing and reading for the child’s developing literacy knowledge and skills? Sources of Children’s Literacy Knowledge: Reading or Writing? Literacy learning does not begin when children enter kindergarten, but typically is the result of literacy environments created by families who use print for a variety of purposes (Bissex, 1980; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; Teale, 1986; Durkin, 1966). Young children are no longer viewed as passengers in a maturational journey that makes them ready for reading instruction; rather, they are viewed as active co-constructors of their own literacy knowledge as a result of purposeful, culturally defined interactions around print (Teale & Sulzby, 1986). The underlying assumption of newer views of literacy development is that social interactions around print with literate adults provide the necessary background knowledge upon which young children construct their knowledge 11 about the functions, conventions, and forms of print prior to formal instruction (Kantor, Miller & Fernie, 1992; Morrow, 1990; Ninio & Brunet, 1978; Purcell-Gates, 1998; Snow & Ninio, 1986). From an emergent literacy framework, reading, writing, speaking, and listening are viewed as interrelated (Teale & Sulzby, 1986). Oral language environments that encourage children to use explanatory speech and narrative discourse are hypothesized to contribute to children’s later transition into reading (Scollon, 1984; Wells, 1985). Some argue that reading is promoted primarily through book reading while the underlying concepts needed for understanding the writing system are promoted through symbolic representation nurtured in symbolic play (Pellegrini, Galda, Perlmuter, & Jones, 1994). Durkin (1966), in her groundbreaking research of the home environments of children who learned to read at home prior to exposure to school-based instruction, found that being read to and having adults who responded positively to the children’s early attempts at writing were common factors among the early readers. Especially for children from low-income homes, children’s access to print prior to school entrance has been found to be related to their success in school (Heath, 1982; Teale, 1986; McCormick & Mason, 1986; Neuman & Roskos, 1993; Whitehurst et al., 1994). Neuman (1999) provides support for the added value of increased availability of books and extension activities with books for low-income children. A study by Morrow (1988) demonstrated the benefits of repeated experiences with books for low-achieving children. Research on the value of literacy enriched play settings has been on going (Martinez et al., 1989, Kantor, Miller & Fernie, 1992; Roskos & Neuman, 1993). In 1999, Neuman reported the impact on children’s emergent literacy 12 development from increased access to books and teacher training on how to create story extenders in classrooms serving low-income preschool children. Visual aids like flannel boards and stick puppets were provided to help children use more vivid vocabulary in elaborating the story. Teachers in Neuman’s study were encouraged to used books with predictability, pattern and rhythm. Rereading the books was considered an important aspect of the program. Repeated reading of books by adults is believed to assist children in understand language patterns, the structure of stories and the functions of language. Children’s retellings reflect their assimilation of the story line and enable them to practice the language of books, as they often use the intonation of the adult reader Adult-child book reading experiences have received the most acclaim for assisting children’s constructions of knowledge about print, but some evidence exists that exposure to literate adults engaged in writing activities is also effective in helping children develop knowledge about the symbolic nature of the writing system, even when book reading has not been a part of the early childhood experience. Clay (1998) asserted that children from the Samoan-speaking homes scored high on her concepts of print assessment even though the families did not have storybooks in the home. She attributed the Samoan children’s source of knowledge about print to extensive letter writing activities in the homes and strong church affiliations, which promoted Bible reading. Earlier, Clay (1985) had noted that children’s first explorations of print might occur in writing rather than reading. While most experts agree that exposure to functional reading and writing activities within the culture is a necessary element in children’s emerging literacy development, the primacy of storybook reading, environmental print reading, exposure to adult writing activities, oral language activities such as singing and rhyming, or emergent reading and writing 13 activities has not been established. Further research is needed to understand the unique contributions of exposure to different types of adult-child interactions around print. This study will look at joint construction of written texts compared to adult-child interactions focused on repeated pattern story reading in preschool settings, especially for children who do not yet exhibit a firm conception of the intentionality of print or the relationship of speech and print. The Nature of Adult—Child Interactions during Literacy Activities Although adult-child interactions around reading and writing are both believed to play a role in the development of children’s understandings of the forms and functions of print, parent-child interactions during book reading have been studied more extensively than adult-child interactions involving writing. Neuman and Roskos (1993) explored the role of adult-mediation in a literacy play setting in a Head Start classroom, yet few studies of young children’s writing activities in homes or in preschools have focused on the role of the adult in any other capacity than responder or inquirer. On the other hand, studies abound on the nature and variety of ways adult-child book reading impacts children’s emergent literacy (Bus& van Ijzendoor, 1988; Heath, 1982; Ninio, 1980; Resnick, etal., 1987; Dickinson, 1989; Dickinson & Smith, 1994). Studies reveal distinctive style differences in the way parents and teachers read and interact with their children around books. Differences in style of book reading interactions between mainstream and non-mainstream parents and their children are thought to contribute to differential outcomes for success in school (Heath; Pellegrirri, 1991). One such cultural difference is that mainstream mothers draw their children’s 14 attention to print and use terms, such as word, letter and read, more extensively than non- mainstream mothers (Olson, 1984). Evidence exists for variable effects of different book genres on the number and type of children’s responses and adult questioning styles (Day, 1996; Yaden, Smolkin, & Conlon, 1989). The effects of repeated readings of story and alphabet books have also been investigated (Morrow, 1988). McCormick and Mason (1986) concluded that repeated reading of familiar texts were more common in the experiences of children who were able to infer the stable relationship of spoken words and print and consequently extrapolate the alphabetic principle prior to formal instruction. Studies of young children’s writing development have traced age-related patterns of writing from drawing and scribbling to conventional spelling (Bissex, 1980; Clay, 1975; Hansen, 1998). Theories of the developmental nature of children’s writing systems have emerged from a variety of evidence-the marks children make on paper (Clay), what children say while writing (Dyson, 1987; Sulzby, 1986), how they read what they have written (F erreiro, 1984; Kamberelis & Perry, 1994), or their reasons for specific letters or letter-like forms in their written products (F erreiro, 1986). Models of children’s developing knowledge of how speech maps onto print have come from observations of children reading favorite books (Schickedanz, 1981) and from situations where the child is in control of the writing tool (Dyson, 1987). Adults demonstrate the relationship between spwch and print when they act as scribes for dictated messages from the child, especially when they take the opportunity to say the words slowly and enunciate letter sounds as they write or point to each word carefully as they read back the dictated text. Even though parents and teachers have acted as scribes 15 for children’s messages for many years, the dialogue surrounding such acts has not been detailed to the same extent as the dialogues in adult-child book reading activities. Discourse analysis of parent-child book reading routines (Altwerger, Diehl-F axon & Dockstader-Anderson, 1985; Ninio & Brunet, 1978; Ninio, 1980) and teacher-led book sharing routines in school (Cochran-Smith, 1984) have added to our cumulative understanding of how literate adults mediate children’s participation in book reading events and appropriate these cultural resources. More research is needed to explore the nature of adult-child interactions during joint construction of written texts and the relationship between the activity structure and children’s growing mastery of the knowledge and use of various literacy concepts. Finger Point Reading and Print Related Knowledge Several scholars have attempted to define finger point reading and investigate its relationship to other emergent literacy knowledge. Ehri and Sweet (1991) investigated the relationship of the ability of non-readers to finger point read and remember information from the activity. They defined finger point reading as an advanced form of pretend reading (Sulzby, 1986), in which the child points to each word while reciting the text from memory. The focus of their study was on the benefits of practice in finger point reading for children’s eventual transition to processing print, i.e., word recognition. Since the children in the study were non-readers, any post test word recognition skill could only be attributed to the finger point reading intervention. Letter name knowledge and phonemic segmentation skill were correlated with identification of a word in the sentence, while phonemic segmentation alone was correlated with children’s performance on the finger point reading task (post test), after the finger point reading training. The 16 findings were based on a two day training of finger point reading, which may not be enough exposure to allow for changes in print processing skills. Classrooms which use a shared book approach or encourage finger point reading of familiar texts are better suited for an investigation of the relationship of finger point reading and the development of other print concepts. Extending the research of Ehri and Sweet (1991), Uhry (1999) investigated the correlates of finger pointing reading, letter identification, phoneme segmentation of initial and final sounds, and invented spelling. She studied 109 kindergarten children who, in general, were more advanced in their word recognition skills than in the earlier study by Ehri and Sweet (some could read a few words in isolation), so she conducted a separate analysis of the non-readers in the group. The teacher presented the text as a classroom activity on four separate days prior to the testing. The teacher modeled finger point reading of the text with the whole group. Word finding was based on two versions of the text, one with pictures and text in the same position and a second version with no pictures and the text in altered position on the page. The position of the target words varied considerably (initial, middle, and final position in lines of print). In Uhry’s study, the children were also asked to explain how they knew which word to point to and the responses were categorized. To further extend Ehri and Sweet’s research, Uhry added a spelling test of the target words. Like Ehri and Sweet, Uhry concluded that non-readers (unable to read words out of context) but who are able to demonstrate some ability to finger point read should be classified as phonetic cue readers according to Ehri’s (1992) model. Phonetic cue readers utilize some but not all letters in the word. Uhry concluded that while phonetic cue readers use some beginning letter and phoneme knowledge, 17 beginning readers (children who can read 3 or more words out of context) use final letters and phonemes as well as initial letter and phoneme during finger point reading. Both studies used short training models for finger point reading, since their primary purpose was to investigate precursor skills that might facilitate the ability to match spoken language with written text. An exhaustive search of the archival literature revealed no other studies supporting, or for that matter, evaluating the benefits of finger point reading for advancing other print concepts. How Children Gain Literacy Knowledge from Interactions around Print Briefly, 1 review current trends in distinctive yet complementary perspectives explaining the wide range of observed differences in young children’s accumulated knowledge about print prior to formal instruction. This question is relevant because of the relationship between teaching and learning. Many if not most current studies of young children’s literacy development are based on constructivist theories of learning. How young children acquire familiarity with literacy practices through social interactions with other children and a literate adult is a central question in this study. The theoretical underpinnings of the activities introduced, the assessment measures used, and the analysis of children’s responses in the current study are based on the constructivist theories I review in this section. Research drawn from a Piagetian perspective of literacy development focuses on what the individual child does and what (5) he learns, including the refinement of abilities, knowledge and intentions. Even though literacy development takes place in a social environment, with adults providing essential feedback for children’s constructed hypotheses about print, the social information is not received passively in a child’s l8 individual mind. The information provided by the environment, either in the home or the school, is sometimes accepted, ignored, or even rejected by the child (Ferreiro, 1986). From the Piagetian perspective, the ability of a child to assimilate information from the environment is, in part, related to the match between the knowledge a child has already built up about the writing system and the type of information being presented in the environment (Bissex, 1980). Hierarchal vs. Stage Theories Many claim literacy knowledge is built on foundational concepts which must be understood before higher levels of literacy knowledge can be assimilated. A hierarchy of pre-reading concepts influences what children are able to take from the environment. McCormick and Mason (1986) argue that knowledge of the functional aspect of print must be established prior to knowledge of the forms and conventions of print. Children must have some understanding that oral messages have printed counterparts before they are able to learn about letter-sound conventions (Purcell-Gates, 1998). Young children most often learn the functions of literacy in real life settings where literacy is used to accomplish a goal rather than serving as a goal in itself (Teale & Sulzby, 1986). Goodman (1983) has argued that children intuitively construct a variety of principles about language, which cannot be taught directly. These principles are developed when children directly interact with print for meaningful and functional purposes. The principles are categorized into the following clusters: functional principles which are based on the purposes of written language; linguistic principles which are based on the grapho—phonic, syntactic, and semantic systems of language; and relational principles which concern how aspects of written/oral languages relate to aspects of 19 meaning. Further, according to Goodman, these principles do not emerge in an ordered and predictable fashion, but emerge differently by each child depending on the child’s environment and experiences with print. The principles become integrated, and depending on the written language event, different principles may be more salient to the child. Similarly, Clay (1985) does not support a stage theory of writing development; rather, her view is that writing development moves from gross approximations of writing to more accurate and more differentiated forms through invention rather than imitation. According to Clay, spontaneous copying of written forms contributes more to the children’s writing development than being required to practice writing by copying a printed model. Opportunities for experimentation with writing and encouragement to write for their own purposes are viewed as crucial elements in the range of experiences needed for adequate development of knowledge about the forms and functions of print. While the value of directly teaching children about the concepts of writing and the concepts of print is debated, Purcell-Gates (1998) has argued in favor of explicit and direct responsive teaching within activities which engage children in reading and writing attempts of meaningful and connected texts. Vygotskian Perspective Vygotsky (1962) regards literacy development as a social, not merely an individual achievement; more precisely, he argues that key developments appear interpersonally before they appear intrapersonally. Literacy, like other knowledge and processes, is viewed as part of a socialization process that is both historical and social. It is passed down through the generations through literacy practices in homes and schools 20 and enacted on the social plane before being appropriated by any individual learner. Research from this perspective is focused on the type and frequency of meaningful acts of literacy in which members of the culture engage, and the ways children acquire familiarity with these literacy uses. The tutorial practices of parents and teachers are of particular interest (Flood, 1977; Cazden, 1983; Heath, 1984; Martinez & Teale, 1993; Ninio & Brunet, 1978; Ninio, 1980; Resnick et al., 1987). Sociolinguistic Research Research based on a sociolinguistic perspective, which emphasizes the tools of discourse analysis, has also added to our understanding about how children acquire literacy competencies in adult-child interactions. Comparisons of the discourse patterns during parent-child book reading and classroom lessons reveal striking similarities between the conversational routines during reading routines at home and teachers’ tum- taking procedures (Cazden, 1983). Many have argued that the conversational competence developed in book reading routines at home is the basis for transfer to discourse forms valued in school (Snow & Ninio, 1986; Heath, 1982). Discourse analysis, applied to other informal teaching situations between parents and children, has been used to explain how parents assist their children in making inferences about culturally dependent concepts through proleptic instruction imbedded in joint interactions (Stone, 1989). Brown and Palincsar (1989) defined proleptic teaching as “situations where novices are encouraged to participate in a group activity before they are able to perform unaided, the social context supporting the individual’s efforts. The novice “carries out simple aspects of the task while observing and learning from an expert, who serves as a model for higher level involvement” (p.410). 21 Rogoff et a1. (1993) offered further explanation of how children gained from social interactions. Rogoff et al. argued for a process called “appropriation” rather than internalization to explain how children take from social interactions. Intemalization is the view that children bring external, social or inter-psychological (Vygotsky, 197 8) processes “inside” to the intra-psychological plane. A child’s state of participation may be either peripheral or central in any given social activity. Children learn to manage their participation within these activities. Later, children utilize their changed understandings in a new situation Children do not internalize an external process, they “appropriate a changed understanding” and take this new understanding, and the practices associated with it, to new situations (Rogoff et al., 1993, p.234). Whether children “take from the environment” based on their pre-existing framework or construct their hypotheses in the presence of experts, who explicitly or implicitly “teach” novices during joint literacy activities, is debated. Adult-child routines thought most influential in promoting young children’s literacy knowledge are primarily drawn from cultural practices that occur in informal settings, rather than school settings where a teacher’s role is more of an object of contemplation. Well’s ( 1996) discussion of discourse as a tool-kit in the activity of teaching and learning brings this discussion into the classroom context. Wells has asserted that teachers make semiotic choices within dialogue exchanges in the classroom; in those choices, teachers instantiate a particular version of the “practice of education” (p.30). Wells argued that at a micro level, teaching is the strategic use of a range of semiotic choices for follow-up within the sequence of a triadic dialogue exchange. Every exchange begins with an Initiating move which is followed by a Response move, which 22 may be verbal or non-verbal. In some exchanges there is also a third move, a Follow-up move. Teachers have a lot of discretion at the micro-level for the type of follow-up they employ during any given exchange and that within these interactions are opportunities for more knowledgeable participants to contribute to the learning of novices. What can be gained from this study? Preschool teachers have a great deal of flexibility in the types of activities they introduce to young children. And while preschool teachers generally agree on the importance of reading to young children, the specifics of what children are able to gain from book reading interactions or child-dictated writing is less clear. Even less clear are the types of language input and discourse interactions during these types of activities. This study has the potential to add to those specifics. Through the combination of various analyses-discourse analyses detailing the nature of the adult-child interactions within and across the interventions as they are enacted and non-parametric statistical analyses of specific literacy concepts, the study can add to our knowledge base about reading and writing contexts in preschool settings and the relationship of the cognitive changes associated with individual children who exhibited different initial levels of knowledge of print concepts. If more evidence is needed to persuade preschool teachers of the benefits of point to text and of writing with young children, then perhaps this study can add to that evidence. Conducting finger point reading with preschoolers extends our understanding of how these types of tutorial practices of adults around print operates with a population younger than previous research conducted with kindergartners. Are there benefits to children as young as 3 years old when adults model reading and writing processes? If so, 23 what are the predominant features of the interactions? As a descriptive study, this study will provide evidence of how the interactions were conducted with these groups of children. Pointing to text is not a new recommendation for adults or parents of young children. Researchers’ admonitions to teachers and parents of young children to point to the text while reading can be found in most parenting pamphlets containing information on emergent literacy development. However, as a teacher educator, student teacher supervisor for over ten years and a volunteer in non-school early childhood settings for over 30 years, my observation has been that the practice of pointing to the pictures while reading to children is more pronounced than pointing to the words. In field observations of the Head Start classroom I conducted over a two year period prior to the current study, I observed both the aide and the teacher reading with both small groups and large groups of children. Rarely did the teacher or aide point to the book. When they did point, it was to the pictures, never the words. If this sort of picture pointing bias is prevalent among preschool teachers, then the implications from this study, with its decided emphasis on word pointing, could be important. Modeling the reading process by pointing to the words is a more common practice in first grade classrooms where beginning reading instruction is occurring. This study can add to our understanding of the value of making the reading and writing processes more visible to children as young as 3 years old who are in the process of observing literate adults and drawing conclusions about the role of print in the reading process and the relationship of speech and print in the writing process. 24 CHAPTER THREE METHODS AND TOOLS OF THE STUDY Site and Participants The participants in this study were twenty-three children drawn from a Head Start preschool program in a small rural community in the Midwest. Approximately fifteen children, from 3 to 5 years old, attended either the morning or the afiernoon session in the four-day a week program. Due to erratic attendance patterns, pre-mid-post data were collected on a maximum of 12 students in the morning session and 11 students in the afternoon session. Several students moved out of the program soon after the study began and others joined after the pretests had been conducted. Some children had been screened for possible special education services. The children were all Caucasian and native English speakers. Most of the children lived in a rural setting. The same headteacher and aide taught children in both the moming or aftemoon sessions and followed the same curriculum for both sessions. The head teacher and aide had worked together for more than 8 years and were recommended by the Head Start office because their classroom was considered a good example the program. Procedures The study was conducted in a two-phase design with two groups of preschool children. Different literacy activity settings were designed for the morning and afternoon groups. The two types of adult-led and free play literacy activities were conducted two days a week over a six-week period in late spring. After the first six sessions (Phase I), the adult-led and free play activities were altered for the morning group during Phase II, which was conducted in six sessions over the following three week period. The types of 25 activities were the same during Phase I and II for the aftemoon preschool group. Several pretests were conducted over a two day period with the children in each session, morning and aftemoon, prior to the introduction of the two types of activity settings, after Phase I (mid-tests), and after Phase H (post tests). Phase I and H adult-led literacy activities were conducted during a ten to fifteen minute opening ‘library/book-browsing’ time and a second ‘library/book-browsing’ time segment, which typically lasted about 15 minutes, following the daily meal. Corresponding literacy activities were added to the free play time frame for each phase. The morning and afiernoon group adult-led and free play literacy activities were designed differently to compare the nature and impact of book reading/pointing and shared writing and pointing activities on preschool children’s developing knowledge about print During the opening and second library/book-browsing segments, the children self-selected to participate in the adult-led activities, to browse books independently, or to listen to the aide or teacher read when they were available. The rationale for the open participation format is based on research on typical interaction types for young children, which includes on-looker play. Rogoff et al. (1993) argued that children’s participation can be either peripheral or central within social activities in home settings. The established routine for the opening and second ‘library/book-browsing’ segment was for the children to hang up their coats, select their name tags and hang them on the bulletin board tree, then choose a book from the library book rack, sit down and read until they were called to the meal. Afier eating and putting aware their dishes, children were allowed to go back to the library area and read a book quietly until all the children had finished the meal. No other materials were allowed during either of these 26 book-browsing time frames. The teacher or aide joined the children on the rug and read to them in small groups on occasion. Literacy materials on the book shelf included a Sears catalog, a calendar, a set of children’s encyclopedias, and 10-15 paper or hardback books. The books the teacher read to the children during her lesson or circle time were not available for the children. The teacher kept them safe on her desk or at home. Later in the daily schedule, children had opportunities to choose among a variety of activities throughout the room, called free play. During the free play time segment the books and corresponding materials to the adult-led literacy activities presented earlier during the two book-browsing segments were available for self-initiated independent exploratory or parallel play. The free play period followed a teacher-led circle time on the rug. The activities in the study were new to the children and the teacher, and could be considered add-on curriculum. Phase I MorningGroup: Repeated pagtem book reading activitv setting literacy activities. In Phase I, adult-led, interactive pattern book reading and pointing was the focus of the activity setting for the morning group. Several alphabet and picture books were added to the library shelves for the children to select during the two ‘library/book-browsing’ time flames. As a participant/researcher, I joined them on the rug and introduced three pattern books during Phase I. On day one of a new book introduction, I laid the book on the floor, read/sang and pointed to the text once through, then invited a child to do the pointing while I read/sang. All children in the small group were encouraged to sing along while children took turns pointing to alternating pages of text or to the print in a second copy of the text. During the introduction phase, the book was reread several times to allow for the participation of more children in the book handling and finger pointing 27 activity. The pattern books used in Phase I for the morning group were: There Was An Old Larry, Mary Wore Her Red Dress, and Roll Over. Free play in repeaterQattem book reading setting: Phase 1. Literacy objects connected with the focus books were added to the choices of activities. Following the introduction of the first book, There Was An Old Lady, during the book-browsing segment, a small flannel board with commercially made paper characters corresponding to the characters in There Was An Old Lacy and a hard-back glossy page copy of the book were placed in the free play area. After introducing the book, Mary Wore Her Red Dress, a commercially made audio tape and children’s tape recorder with detachable microphone and two copies of the book were introduced into the free play setting. After engaging children in role play of the book Roll Over during the opening book-browsing segment, two small individual, portable puppet stages (covered oatmeal boxes), two copies of the book, and popsicle stick puppets of the corresponding characters were added to the choices of activities during free play. An audio tape of Roll Over was also added. Once the free play activities were introduced, they remained a choice throughout the study. The focus books were added to the library choices throughout the study. Two copies of two of the titles were available to the children during the two book-browsing segments and during free play, which allowed for maximrun exposure and availability to the children Afternoon: Child-dilated writinggroup Phase I. For the aftemoon group, adult- led literacy activities focused on engaging the children in joint construction of written texts drawn from familiar finger plays, songs, or nursery rhymes. I joined the children on the rug in the library area and encouraged their participation in either a one-on-one basis 28 or small group. The writing was done on 11 x 18 chart paper, which was tacked to the wall at eye level after the writing was completed or on 8 V2” by 11” paper which was laminated and bound into a class book. I controlled the writing instrument and solicited word and letter contributions from the children. The typical method for the dictation was as follows. After writing each phrase, I pointed to each word and read/sang it back. Upon completion of the poem, the children were invited to read/sing and finger point on the chart or paper. After the dictated writing of the familiar oral text, as the participant/researcher, I scaffold the creation of a new verse based on the pattern of the original The first chart writing activity introduced on Day 1 of Phase I was “Eensie, Weensie Spider. The finger play was introduced first as a finger play without props, then with flannel board figures which were given to the children to put on the board as the song progressed. The children were very familiar with this rhyme. When I began to write the rhyme on the chart paper and repeat each written phrase, several children insisted that I write “Itsy, Bitsy,” not “Eensie Weensie Spider.” No protests were made during the initial singing of the rhyme, but they insisted on getting the words right for the written version. A guiding principle for dictating writing is to preserve the language of the child, so I complied. On Day 2 chart dictation was based on an expandable concept song about spring the teacher had been singing with the children during circle time, “Spring Is Coming.” No other written versions of this song had been presented to the children. In the opening library/book browsing segment, the three known verses were written in complete form 29 with the refiain. Brief illustrations of grass, flowers, and a bird were drawn above the words in the text to help the children orient their text pointing while singing. Spring is coming, spring is coming, How do I know? How do I know? (Expandable Verses)1. The grass is getting greener. The grass is getting greener. 2. I see the flowers blooming. I see the flowers blooming. 3. I hear the robins singing. I hear the robins singing. Refrain: That’s how I know. That’s how I know. During the second library/book-browsing segment, one child at a time was encouraged to dictate a sentence about how he/she knew spring was coming. The first two lines of the song were already written at the top of the page. I read and pointed to the first two lines then invited them to dictate their own sentence for me to scribe. This was followed by the text, “that’s how I know, that’s how I know,” at the bottom of the page. Space was left for a drawing to be added by the child during free play. All the pages of participating children were assembled into a class book, laminated and brought back for reading on Day 3. Names of participating children were typed written on the cover as authors. Class books were added to the library for browsing. On some occasions, finding their name on the cover was more an object of contemplation than looking at the books contents. On days three and four, the familiar nursery rhyme, “Jack and Jill Went Up the Hill,” was written on a chart along with the new personalized versions, which were also written on charts. Because Jack and Jill begin with the same initial letter, children were encouraged to determine if someone in the class had the same first letter as their name. 30 Pairs of children with names beginning with the same first letter were invited to dictate a parallel nursery rhyme. Three pairs of children were identified and participated in the dictation on the Day 3. Children made decisions on changes in the familiar text at specific junctures: the names, what to fetch and who fell down first/second. The charts were given to the pairs of children to reread and point before being placed on the wall. On day four, above the corresponding words I added small computerized images of the objects they chose to fetch. The format of the text was a modified rebus. As the charts accumulated on the wall, chart rereading and pointing were encouraged each day during both book browsing segments and were available during free play. The last rhyme used in dictated chart writing and scaffolding of personalized versions of familiar texts in Phase I was “Mary Had Little Lamb,” which was first written with the children help in its original form on a chart for the wall. Personalized versions of the rhyme were created by having children determine what kind of animal might follow them to school. Children made decisions about: what animal would follow them to school, the size of the animal (big or small), the color and type of hair of the animal? Tyler dictated, “Tyler had a big dog whose fur was all black. And everywhere that Tyler went, the big, black dog was sure to go,” etc. On the day following the initial dictation, children chose computer images of dog, cats, and other animals selected and placed them above the corresponding words. After dictating and selecting images, each child was encouraged to read and point to the words of their text. The personalized versions were bound in a class book. Free play for child-dictated writing group: Phase I and II. On Day 1 of Phase I, a writing table was introduced as a free play choice for the afternoon group. The writing 31 table was available every day of the study throughout both Phases of the study for the afternoon group. During free play time the writing table was stocked each day with new writing tablets, blank notepads, blank cards, envelopes, self-adhesive post-it note pads, and catalog and magazine order forms. A variety of writing tools were available, including crayons, pencils, pens, different types of markers and two styles of letter stamps. The writing table was not manned by an adult unless the teacher chose to briefly interact with the children. At the writing table children were encouraged to write for their own purposes. Ewell Repeated pattern book reading group: adult-led activitv. The activity format for the morning (storybook reading) group was modified during Phase II to add an adult-led writing activity in the book browsing time and a writing table during free play. The focus was still on interactive pattern book reading and pointing to texts in books while adding dictated writing of new texts based on the pattern books. Participation of the children was strictly voluntary. The children were encouraged to dictate a portion of text based on the pattern of the focus pattern book during the book reading and browsing segments and to draw a corresponding picture during free play. Class books were assembled with the pages created by the children who participated in the dictation activity. The class book then became the focus book for reading and pointing to text. The names of all the children who participated in the writing of the text for the class book were written on the cover. Pattern books introduced during Phase II were: The Very Busy Spider. Brown Bear Brown Bear, and Polar Bear Polar Bear. 32 Free play for pattern book reading ggoup: Phase 11 During Phase II, a writing table was added to the choices of activities for the children in the morning group. Direction was provided at the beginning of the free play time for children interested in completing a page for the class book, but during the remainder of free play time, all the writing materials were available at the writing table for self-selection without adult direction. The writing materials and tools were the same as provided for the afternoon group. Retelling flannel figures for The Very Busy Spider were added to the choices of retelling props from Phase I. The retelling props, tapes, and books introduced in Phase I were available throughout Phase H. Considering the relatively short time frame of the study (two days a week for six weeks), the availability of materials was extended throughout the study in order to maximized the possible benefits of participation in interactively reading/pointing and retelling of patterned texts. Child-dictated writing: Adult-led activities. The structure of the adult-led activities during the two book-browsing segments and free play remained the same throughout Phases I and II for the afternoon group. Old MacDonald Had a F arm. Five Little Ducks, and F arm Animals were the focus texts for pointing and writing during Phase II. The last activity was unique to the set since the writing was a letter by letter dictation done in a booklet, and thus more structured. Farm Animals was a commercial black-line booklet with empty speech bubbles for the animal on each page. The text on each page was a simple sentence, e. g., “The cow says, ‘Moo’.” After reading each line of text, I asked the children to help me spell what the animal said. I wrote each letter into the speech bubble as they were able to provide. When they were unable to determine the correct letter, I pointed out the connection to the printed text that could help them know 33 what letters to write. Several children in this group knew almost all the letters of the alphabet so the activity progressed smoothly. During free play, each child was given a booklet to color or write in as they chose. Several who had not shown interest in writing earlier in the study were intensely interested in this writing activity. Data Collection Pretest measures were administered individually to the children in both groups before the introduction of the activity settings (pretests), after Phase I (mid-tests), and after Phase II (post tests). The pre, mid, and post tests were video and audio taped for accuracy and to analyze non-verbal behaviors during the writing and orientation to print tasks. The audio tapes were transcribed and non-verbal (pointing) responses were added to the transcripts from the video tapes. Data were collected on the interactions of children with literacy materials and the researcher-led activities during the opening library/ book browsing segment (approximately 15 minutes), a second book browsing time that followed the meal (approximately 15 minutes), and a 10 minute sample of fiee play time which followed a circle time with the teacher and aide. The activity settings were video taped using two cameras, a stationary camera and a roving camera. Video tapes were made of a baseline period prior to the introduction of the adult-led and free play literacy activities, the adult- led literacy activities in Phase I and ten minutes of the free play period, a second baseline period after Phase I with out the researcher in the activity space, Phase 11 activities, and a final tape of the children during the same time frames without the researcher in the activity space. 34 Baseline: Pretest Assessments The following measures were used to investigate the question of the impact of the activity settings on children’s emergent literacy knowledge and skills. All were administered as pre and post tests. TERA-II (Test of Earlv Reading Ability). Form A of the TERA-II (Reid, Hresko, & Hammill, 1989) is used as a standardized measure of the broad scope of literacy knowledge that emerges during the preschool years. The TERA-II measures knowledge of the alphabet, letter orientation, knowledge of the difference between letters and numbers, conventions of print, functions of print, and children’s ability to attribute meaning to printed symbols. The test consists of 45 questions normed for children from 3.0 to 9.11 years old. To assess comparability across groups on the pretest and to measure changes in literacy knowledge, Form A of the 10-minute test was administered to each child in the study prior to the introduction of any literacy related activities and form B was administered after Phase H. Normal Curve Equivalents (NCE’s) were used as the comparison score between the pretest and post tests on the two forms of the TERA-II. The authors of the TERA-II assert that regardless of the time of year the test is given, an NCE score will always represent the national average for a child at that age level. An NCE gain of zero on a pre and post test assessment represents the amount of gain that would be expected in normal, non-intervention, situations. Any gain in NCE’s on pre and post test measures associated with an intervention, could presumably be viewed as evidence of an increase in a child’s understanding of the concepts being measured beyond that which would be expected without the intervention. 35 The TERA-II was standardized based on a sample of 1454 children ranging in age from 3.0 to 9.11. One third of the sample population was from rural areas. Stability reliability coefficients were established by calculating both a test retest coefficient using an alternate form and internal consistency coefficient derived from the split-half procedure. The stability reliability coefficient for the TERA-II is .89. Capital letter naming. Letter naming ability was measured using the capital letter prompt sheet from the Michigan Literacy Progress Profile (1999) which presents 26 capital letters in random order. The total score is the number of letters correctly named. Letters in name. Their name was written on the top of the page in manuscript, similar to the writing used for their name tags. While pointing to each letter in the child’s name, the child was asked, “what is the name of this letter?” The scoring was not based on the exact number of letters known but on the following: no letters named correctly (score=0), knowledge of one letter (score—=1), any two letters (score=2), three or more letters in name but not all the letters (score=3), all the letters in their name (score=4). No names had less than 4 letters. 311m. A rhyme generation task from the Michigan Literacy Progress Profile (MLPP, 1999) was modified to include three prompts for each of 8 target rhyme patterns. A brief explanation of what is meant by rhyming words was given with a demonstration of two words that rhyme. A total of three practice words were given. I provided rhyming words for each practice word and attempted to elicit agreement as to the rhyming quality of each set of words. After the practice sets, a total of 8 sets of rhyming words were given as prompts. The score is the total number of words for which at least one rhyming word was generated (maximum score=8). 36 Initial sound isolation. This task required the child to isolate and pronounce sound of the initial letter (Share & Gur, 1999). Eight words were presented in oral and written form. Four continuant consonants (s,m,r,v), one non-continuant consonant (t), and three long vowel sounds (o, I, e,) were in the initial position. The printed word was shown to the child while pointing to the initial letter. The child was given the prompt, “Here is the letter ‘s’ and the word ‘soap’. What sound does the letter ‘5’ make in the word ‘soap’? Scoring was based on the letter sound spoken in isolation or another word with the same initial letter. No credit was given for the letter name (maximum = 8). This task appeared to be too difficult or needed further training as only 3 children were able to isolate any of the initial letter sounds. Most children gave responses related to the meaning of the word, e.g. rubbing their hands together to create a sound for the word soap or patting the table to make a sound for the word rain. Book concepts. Three questions from the concepts of print subtest of the MLPP (1999) were used for this task: show me the front of the book, show me the back of the book, and show me the name of the book (maximum score = 3). The child was handed a small book with the spine in a vertical position to the child before asking the prompt questions. Knowledge of reading processes. 1) Where to read. Directly after the book concepts questions and while still holding the small book, the child was asked to point in response to the prompt, “show me where to begin reading” (Clay, 1985; MLPP, 1999). One point is scored for pointing to the picture on any page and two points were given for pointing anywhere on the line of text. Because the word “read” is used in the prompt, the task is considered a general measurement of children’s knowledge of where readers look 37 when reading. Lornax and McGee (1987) use the term “orientation to print” to refer to the idea that print rather than the picture is what a reader looks at when reading and that the print carries the message or meaning. Hiebert (1981) used a more direct question related to where someone who could read should look while reading to assess “knowledge of reading processes.” 2.) Intentionality of print. A big book was used for a series of prompts asking the child to point to “where does it say ‘____’7” or “where is the word,____?” Video tapes of the assessments allow for greater reliability in the assessment of their pointing behaviors. Because the prompts use “say” and “word” rather than “read,” the task is considered a measure of the child’s understanding of where the message is located, print or pictures. First I read the line of text on each page of the big book and told the child, “On this page it says, “. . . ”. On each page, after reading the line of text, I said, “Point to where it says, “(repeating the line of text)” Several opportunities were given for pointing to text after the whole line was repeated in the prompt. At least two prompts targeted a single word that appeared either as the first word or the last word in the line of text on the page. After reading the line of text, the prompt was given to point to the word, “___”. If the child pointed to any word in the text or swept on or under the text it was counted as a text score although it was not counted as a correct word location score. Each response to point was noted as a text or a picture response, whether the prompt was based on the whole line of text or a single word. The child’s total pointing responses to “where it does say” or “where is the word” prompts were categorized and scored: l-all responses were on the pictures, 2-some responses were on the text and some on the pictures, 3-all 38 responses were on the text. The consistency of the child’s responses to the location prompts for the message of a story is the focus of this measure (Rhodes, 1993). 3.) Can you read it? For the pretest a single line of print on a paper without pictures was presented to the child, “Once upon a time there were three goats.” The following questions were asked: what do you see on this paper, what do you call it, what could it be for, can you read it, and what does it say? Many children did not respond to the questions, what do you see and what could it be for? The types of responses for the question, “what do you call it,” ranged from numbers, random letter names, naming the letters in the text, abc’s, letters, words, writing, and reading. Responses to the last question, can you read it, provided more data for analysis of their evolving understandings of what it means to read print without the context of a picture. The responses to this question were categorized based on Ferreiro’s (1984) assertions about the symbolic nature of letters, Sulzby’s (1985) stages of pretend reading, and Munn’s (1995) work on young children’s beliefs about reading. Although all the children in this study were considered non-readers, their beliefs about reading were assessed with a direct question about their ability to read a specific line of text. For the mid test and the post test, a set of four sentences taken from the pattern books and the dictated rhymes and songs were presented for this series of questions. The intent was to assess the direct impact of the finger point reading activities on their ability to recognize text outside of the original context (book or chart), as well as to trace their thinking about the reading process. Knowlegga of the relationship between speech and print: Word lfltion. Knowledge of where a reader looks when reading a story is one aspect of children’s 39 developing knowledge of the process of reading and what readers do (Munn, 1995). Another aspect of reading process knowledge is knowing that the message is in the text and not in the pictures. The task for determining what children knew about “where it says” the story was embedded in a big book reading session where I read the line of text on each page with a preface, “On this page it says On the target page of text containing a single line of print, I would prompt the child to point to “where does it say... .7” or “where is the word ___________?” or “point to the word From 5 to 7 prompts were given throughout the reading and discussion of the big book. If the child pointed to the pictures on all prompts, he was assigned a score of 1. If he pointed to the words on all prompts, he was assigned a score of 3. When a child pointed to the pictures on some prompts and to the words on other prompts, he was given a score of 2. When a specific word location prompt was given for the word location task, which was embedded in this task, and the child pointed to a word other than the target word, the response was counted as a word (versus the picture) response, even though he would not receive a word location point. The first half of the big book, Two Feet, was used for the pretest and the second half of the book for the mid test assessment. A second big book, Valentine 's Day Grump, was used for the post test. The books were classroom books provided by the teacher, but had not been read to the children prior to the assessments. All big book reading sessions were video taped to assure accuracy of scoring. Word location. Within the big book reading and prompting to “point to where it says___?”, specific words located at either the end of the line or the beginning of the line were used as target word prompts for this measure. Each word the child pointed to 40 with a steady point was counted. If the child swept on the line of text, a word location score was not counted. In some cases the child repeated the line of text and pointed while saying each word. A point was given for each word pointed to at the same time as the word was spoken. The child’s score is the total nrnnber of words located with a steady point (Huba & Kontos,1985). Measures Based on Writing Two writing prompts were given to the child at each assessment point (pre/mid/post). The writing prompts were given with a paper containing an image of common animal in the center of the page (pre=turtle, mid=frog, post=duck). Name writing. The child was instructed to write his name at the top of the page. Notes were taken on the direction of the writing and the sessions were video taped to confirm directionality of the writing. After the child appeared to be finished writing his name, the prompt was given, “what did you write or what does it say?” The evaluation of name writing is based on the message quality, the directionality, and the language quality, using parts of Clay’s (1985) rubric for writing assessment with alterations drawn from developmental qualities in young children’s writing noted by Dyson (1982) and Ferreiro (1984). High level refusal to write was added to the rubric based on Sulzby’s (1985) research of children’s pretend reading. The rubric was altered to fit the name writing task. The message quality scoring was based on what the child said about the writing: O= Draws pictures or borders when asked to write, but does not know what it says; l= Has a concept of a message in the picture; 41 2=Writes letters or letter-like forms, but gives letter names for the message or gives no message; 3= Writes name with letters or letter-like forms, but not accurately; 4=High level refusal based on lack of knowledge of letters or how to make the letters; 5=Writes name correctly. The language quality scoring was as follows: O=Draws a picture 1=Scribbles or makes some letter like forms; 2=Writes with some recognizable alphabetic letters; 3=Writes a string of letters but not correct spelling of name; 4=High level refusal based on not knowing how to write the letters; 5=Correctly writes name. The directional quality is based on observation of the child while writing. O=No evidence of directional knowledge due to circular or random placement on page; 1=Partially correct directional pattern, either left to right or start top left; 2=Right to left directional pattern; 3=Left to right directional pattern. Write L word to go with the picture. The child was instructed to write under the picture a word to go with the picture. Children were encouraged to “write it the best you can” if he hesitated or questioned his ability to write. When the child appeared finished or declared to be finished, I asked, “what did you write?” and “what does it say?” The evaluation of the word writing is based on four sets of criteria: the message quality, the 42 directionality, and the language quality drawn from parts of Clay’s (1985) rubric for writing assessment and a second categorical analysis based on Ferreiro’s (1984) assertions about children’s understandings of the symbolic nature of written productions. I modified the scoring to reflect the responses to the word writing task. The children in this sample were younger than the five-year old new entrants in Clay’s (1975) work, necessitating an adaptation in order to include the less mature writing behaviors of the three and four year old children in the study. The scoring rubric for message quality of the word to go with the picture was based on what the child said about their writing: O= Draws pictures or borders when asked to write, but does not know what it says; l= Has a concept of a message in the picture; 2=Writes letters or letter-like forms, but gives letter names for the message or gives no message; 3= Writes with letters or other symbols and gives a message for what is written; 4=High level refusal based on lack of knowledge of letters or how to make the letters; 5=Writes any word correctly and gives correct message of the word. The language quality scoring was as follows: O=Draws a picture when asked to write; 1=Scribbles or makes some letter like forms; 2=Writes with some recognizable alphabetic letters; 3=String of letters but not correct spelling of a word; 4=High level refusal based on not knowing how to write the letters; 5=Any recognizable word. 43 The directional quality is based on observation of the child while writing. 0=No evidence of directional knowledge due to circular or random placement on page; 1=Partially correct directional pattern, either left to right, starts top left or returns down left; 2=Right to left directional pattern; 3=Left to right directional pattern. Children’s responses to the questions (what did you write, what does it say) posed after they wrote their names and a word to go with the picture were categorized into the following groups: low level refusal (no explanation), numbers, letter names, word with the article (“a turtle”), a word without the article (“turtle”), refusal with explanation (“I don’t know what it says”), or correctly reading the word that was written. Ferreiro (1984) claimed that in the period preceding the use of letters to represent sounds in language (invented spelling) young children grapple with the symbolic nature of print. Before coming to understand letters as symbolic or as substitute objects, letters are understood only as objects that have a name. Letters cannot say anything; they can only say their name. For example, when asked, “what does it say?” the only response is, “o,I,a”, or simply, “letters.” At a later point texts without pictures may still be called “letters.” When text is in the context of a picture, the child puts an article with the name when asked, “What is it?”, but drops the article when asked, “What does it say?” For example, the child responds, “a guitar,” when asked, “What is it?” but changes the response to “guitar,” when asked while pointing to the text, “what does it say?” Ferreiro 44 argued that the shift is an important indicator that the child is beginning to understand the symbolic nature of writing. Mid Test Measures A smaller set of measures were used in between Phase I and Phase 11. See Table 1. The mid test measures were conducted individually with the children in each group by the researcher. A different small book from the classroom library was used for questions assessing book concepts and where to read. The second half of the big book, Two Feet, was used for the word location and intentionality of print questions. Name and word writing were presented with a picture of a frog at mid test. The series of questions about print without contextual pictures were presented with four typed sentences: two from the pattern books read by the morning group and two from the dictated writings conducted with the afternoon group. Post Test Measures The same sets of measures used for the pretest were conducted as post test measures. Form B of the TERA-H (Test of Early Reading Ability) was conducted with each child. A second small book from the classroom library was used for questions assessing the 3 book concept questions. The big book, Valentine ’s Day Grump, was used for word location and reading processes questions. Name and word writing were presented with a picture of a duck. The same sentences presented at mid test were used for the series of questions about print without contextual pictures. 45 Chart of Activity Settings and Measures at Each Interval PHASE I PHASE H Pre-tests Activity Setting Mid-tests; Activity Setting Post- Tests TERA-2 Repeated finger Book Continue finger TERA-2 form A, point reading of concepts, point reading of form B, capital pattern books; where to read, pattern books, other post letter Free play: intentionality add dictated tests are names, books on tape, of print, writing using the same lletters in flannel figures location of pattern books as test types & stick puppets words, name sources, class as in and word books in the pretest writing, can library; set. you read Free play: it/what does it continue books on say tape & flannel fi gures/ stick puppets 46 PHASE I PHASE II Grp Pre-tests Activity Setting Mid-tests; Activity Setting Post- Tests PM (same as Joint (same as Continue joint (same as above) construction of above) writing of rhymes above) written texts and songs based on Free play: familiar songs continue writing and rhymes; table. finger point reading of familiar oral texts; class books of newly created texts based on familiar oral texts Free Play: writing table Discourse Data Videotapes of the literacy interactions in each of the activity settings were made using two video cameras: a stationary camera and a roving camera during the adult-led activities. The video tapes document changes in children’s self-initiated interactions with print across the activity settings and the adult-child interactions during the adult-led literacy activities. The adult-led literacy activities were also audio taped to augment the videotape and capture the quieter voices of young children. Videotapes of the literacy activities captured the paralinguistic moves of the researcher and children within the interactions. Data Analysis Descriptions of the Nature of the Activity Settinga Three types of analyses were used to describe the various dimensions of the language environments of the two activity settings: types of language outside of written 47 texts, sequence of discourse interactions, levels of child participation First, the language environment created within each activity setting was determined by repeated viewing of the video tapes to identify the range of types of language outside of the written texts used by the researcher: questions or statements about the text content or references to the written text using metalanguage terms, such as word, letter, where does it say. Attention given to metalanguage cues used in each activity setting was based on assumptions about the potential of the use of metalanguage terms for focusing children’s attention on the symbolic nature of print; i.e. here is the word _; the letter__, this says__. Frequencies of questions and statements about text content or world knowledge references were measured as well as questions or statements using metalanguage terms. Percentages for each were calculated. Second, the pattems of discourse were analyzed in each literacy event within each setting by transcribing the audio from the video tapes and adding the nonverbal interactions to the transcripts. Each reading of a book or reading of the text on a child- dictated chart was considered a literacy event, as was the adult-led activity of transcribing a child-dictated song or rhyme. Since the same book was read several times within one fifteen minute period, the analysis allowed for a comparison of patterns of discourse interactions between the introductory reading of a new book to patterns in later repeated readings of the same book. Next, a detailed labeling of the function of each turn within the interaction was determined. This analysis detailed the patterns of the discourse within each activity setting. Third, the amount of time children were engaged in watching or participating in finger point reading of text was calculated in 15 second intervals. The analysis was called levels of participation. 48 Literacy Assessments Normed assessment d_a_ta. TERA-II scoring was based on age normed data. Paired t-tests of group pre and post scores were conducted using the NCE and Reading Quotient scores. Because the NCE scores are adjusted for age, the change of one NCE would indicate growth not associated with what would be expected from changes in age alone. Continuous variables data. Several measures involved simple counts of the number of items correct for each variable. These included capital letter naming, rhyme generation, initial sound isolation, and word location. Table 2 presents the group means for the standardized and continuous variable assessments at pretest, mid test and post test, grouped by positive group mean change from pretest to post test. Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for AM and PM Groups Pretest Mid-Test Post Test ontinuous N Min- Mean/S N Min— glean/S N Min-Max Mean] ariables Max D Max SD TERA II (NCE) AM 10.60- 41.83 33.1- 58.05 9 59.8 18.58 9 89.3 22.67 PM 10.6- 53.64 21.9- 66.45 8 75.2 21.17 8 96.3 20.68 Capital alphabet AM 3.50 .00- 7.20 letters 10 0-11 3.47 10 19.0 7.08 PM 11.11 16.89 9 0-25 10.01 9 0-26 10.79 Rhyme product. AM .545 .727 task. Max.8 11 0-5 1.51 11 0-5 1.68 PM .111 1.67 9 0-1 .333 9 0-7 2.50 Letters in name AM 1.818 2.27 11 0-4 1.60 11 1-4 1.19 PM 2.00 289 9 1-4 1.32 9 1-4 1.45 Words located AM .50 .00 1.25 8 0-2 .76 8 -5 1.60 8 0-4 1.48 PM .57 1.71 1.86 7 0-2 .786 7 0-4 1.38 7 0-6 1.77 49 Categorical data. Letters known in name, knowledge of reading processes (where readers look when reading), beliefs about reading, directionality of their writing, message quality of their writing, and language quality of their writing were measures based on a range of responses which were grouped by type once the range of responses were known. The categories for scoring the writing assessments were based on Clay’s (1985) rubric for the assessment of the message quality, directionality, and language quality of writing, with the addition of one category for refusing to write because he didn’t know which letters he needed. This was considered a high level of refusal based on metacognitive awareness of the writing process (Sulzby, 1985). Video tapes of the assessments allowed for analysis of their nonverbal responses in the requests for pointing and in their writing behaviors (left to right, top to bottom). The categories were theorized to be on a continuum, so progression from one category to another would indicate a positive change (Table 3). It is recognized that young children’s responses are variable depending on the context and their perceived expectation of the adult’s expectation at any given point in time, so caution in interpreting these data is essential. Table 3. Categorical Literacy Assessments Categorica ‘ Pretest ‘ Post Test ta , . ‘ . ,_ , id-Test- N Min- Mean/S N Min— lMean/ N Min— Mean! Max D Max SD , Max SD eading AM 2.13 2.88 2.75 ocesses: “where 8 1-3 .64 8 2-3 .35 8 2-3 .46 oes it say___?or where is the word?" PM 2.00 2.43 2.72 50 Table 3. Continued Directionality of AM 2.80 2.90 3.60 Writingname 10 1-4 1.40 10 1-4 1.20 10 1-4 .97 PM 3.11 3.44 378 8 1-4 1.16 8 1-4 1.13 8 2—4 .67 Language quality AM 2.40 2.20 2.90 ofwriting name 10 1-5 .69 10 1-5 1.23 10 1-5 1.60 PM 3.33 3.56 3.44 9 1-5 1.66 9 1-5 1.81 L 1-5 1.58 anguage quality AM 1.80 1.90 1.80 ofwritingaword 10 0-3 .92 10 1—3 .88 10 0—3 1.03 tp_go w/picture PM 2.11 200 2.22 9 1-3 .93 9 04 1.22 9 1-4 1.56 Portraits of Individual Children from Each Group Narrative portraits of individual children in each group who made noticeable gains, as well as children who made little or no progress were developed to understand the impact on individual children’s thinking about the concepts under investigation over the duration of the study. Summary The design of this study used both qualitative and quantitative methodologies in order to investigate the nature of two activity settings involving finger point reading activities conducted by the research. A comprehensive set of assessments investigating children’s understanding of reading processes, the symbolic nature of printed texts and their own written productions, and book concepts were given at three intervals throughout the study. Video and audio tapes of the assessments and the activity settings allowed for analysis of both verbal and nonverbal behaviors of the adult and the children within the settings as well as a time analysis of participation of individual children. 51 In Chapter Four I use the tools of discourse analysis to investigate the language input of the adult and the patterns of discourse during the adult-led reading and dictated writing activities. Repeated viewings of the video taped sessions initiated-another question about the patterns of participation of the children within the event frames. Chapter Five presents the frequency of specific independent behaviors using time sampling methodology. Direct participation and indirect participation for children within close proximity in the small group were measured in fifteen second intervals. This analysis addresses the question of how children’s interest in participating in the adult-led literacy activities may influence what children take from such environments. Portraits of individual children in each group are presented in Chapter Six. The narrative portraits provide details of individual children based TERA-II pre and post scores, age, letter knowledge and interest in the literacy activities as measured by direct and indirect participation in finger point reading. 52 CHAPTER FOUR FINGER POINT READING: THE ROLE OF TALK AND TEXT This chapter deals with the research question: what is the nature of the language environments created in the two activity settings? Documentation of the micro-level of the language environment created by the texts and the adult exposes the range of linguistic mechanisms present in each setting. Explication of the environmental variables is important and necessary if children within these literacy activity settings showed evidence or no evidence of change in their thinking about the relationship of speech and print. The theoretical framework for this set of investigations is drawn from socio- linguistic research. Most research of adult-child routines thought to influence young children’s literacy knowledge has drawn from cultural practices in informal settings (Rogoff et al., 1993). Cazden (1983) and Wells (1996) have compared the discourse patterns during parent-child book reading and classroom lessons. Wells’ discussion of discourse as a tool kit in the activity of teaching provided a framework for looking at how these culturally based settings were operating within each book reading and dictated writing event. The book reading and dictated writing events had elements of informality similar to a parent-child book reading event in a home since participation was optional. I sat on the floor with the book on the floor; and on occasion, some children sat on my lap as I read. However, it was conducted in a classroom setting, so roles of teacher and student were assumed to be part of the cultural understandings of the participants. 53 In order to describe the various dimensions of the activity settings, I applied two types of analyses to the video taped sessions. The first analysis investigated the nature of the discourse spoken by the adult within the adult-led reading and dictation activities. The categories emerged from repeated viewing of the video taped sessions. The primary categories for the first layer of discourse analysis were: questions or statements referring to the content of the text, questions or statements referring to metalinguistic terms, such as ‘letter’, ‘word’, ‘say’, and directionality references, such as where to look or point. A second analysis detailed the patterns of the discourse within each activity setting, using Wells’ (1996) framework for elicitation sequences in the episodes of discourse at the micro level of ‘activity’. Comparisons were then made regarding the frequency of each type of interactional move within and across settings. Discourse Analysis: Metalanguage Used in Each Activity Setting The question that guided this part of the discourse analysis was whether different literacy contexts afford adults different opportunities to draw children’s attention to the structure of written language? After reading the pattern book with one group of children and doing the dictated writing activity with the other group of children, I immediately sensed that my talk outside of the texts was distinctly different in each setting. I was also aware that the book I had chosen to read first, There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a F 1y, had restricted my ability to draw attention to features of text like I had anticipated. To unpack these differences and to evaluate my hunches based upon first impressions, I set out to identify all talk outside of text in each setting and for each type of book or writing episode. Using the video tapes of Phase I as the data source, I coded all verbalizations made by myself or another child outside of the words of the book being 54 read. Categories that emerged were: a) questions about a letter name, b) questions about word location, c) questions about the content or story line, d) questions about rhyming words, e) statements about rhyming words, f) statements about a letter, g) statement about a word location, and h) statements about content. A statement or question was counted as a language unit and charted as a percentage of total language units within an event, such as a book reading or chart dictation. Olson (1984) has claimed that literate adults use terms such as “word” and “letter” when referring to print and children’s knowledge of such terms are significantly related to parent literacy levels and young children’s literacy development. Metalanguage is defined as language about language. ‘Word’ and ‘letter’ are references to the structure of written language (Olson, 1979). “What does it say?” is commonly used to direct attention to the message of print, as well as orienting the child to the print as the source of the message. Word, letter and say were the metalanguage terms under investigation in the following analysis of the discourse in each activity setting. I conducted this analysis to gain a clearer picture of the language contexts created by the two activity settings. The types of adult talk around the texts in this study verified the use of metalanguage as a dominant feature of the discourse during the book reading and child-dictated writing episodes. Multiple readings of each book in the book reading activity setting were averaged for comparison of the contexts for metalanguage created by different literacy event types. The focal books were the three titles used throughout Phase I: There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly, Mary Wore Her Red Dress, and Roll Over. 55 In the child-dictated writing and reading activity setting, the central literacy activity was recording the words of two familiar songs/rhymes on small wall charts. A second event type was the creation of a class book made by recording the dictation of each child on a separate page of a, Spring is Coming, class book. The children illustrated the phrase they selected from the “Spring is Coming” song or other statements dictated on the spring theme. The pages were assembled into a book and became a book selection in their library. For this analysis the focal literacy artifacts were the chart dictation and rereading of “Eensie Weensie Spider” and “Spring Is Coming” charts and the reading of the dictated class book, Spring is Coming. Table 4 shows the percentages and types of language units used outside the language of the text for each literacy artifact. Table 4. Metalanguage Frequencies for Phase 1, Book Reading Group (AM) ” — . "Letter Wd, Rhym tit/letter Word Bk: Old 20% 100% 18% Laay Who (1) (5) (7) (3 reads) Bk: Mary 100% 80% 92% 70% Wore Her (6) (4) (33) (28) ( 7ready Bk: Roll 8%(3) Over Name 8%(3) 5%(2) tags- acting out _R’0” Over {9: 2' 1'. C 97= 6% 5% 5% 37% 41% 5% 60% Total (6) (5) (5) (36) (40) (5) 1‘2 The majority of the non-book text language units (60%) spoken during book reading were focused on predicting and describing the story line in the book reading 56 activity setting. However, the types of language units spoken outside of the book texts varied greatly between books. The language outside of the text of two of the books, There Was An Old Lady and Roll Over was focused almost exclusively on content; whereas, the talk outside of text when reading Mary Wore Her Red Dress had few references to content and much higher levels of metalanguage spoken both by the children and myself. In order to understand the level of metalanguage use in each setting, the percentages were re-calculated without the content questions in order to see the relationships between the focus language units across the two literacy activity settings, which appear at the bottom of the chart. Statements and questions about word location were the highest category, comprising 46% of the total metalanguage units spoken during the book reading events. Forty-three percent (43%) of the language units focused on references to letters. All of the references to letters came within the repeated readings of Mary Wore Her Red Dress. The connection to specific letters was a natural one, since each line of text referred to a character’s name in the book. The first connection to letter names was initiated by a child, Bobbie (pseudonym), who noticed the ‘B’ in ‘BEN WORE HIS BLUE JEANS.’ Two character names started with a ‘K’, which was also the first letter of the three-year-old girl’s name, Kelly, (pseudonym), who was in every small group reading of the book. The book, There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly, afforded few opportunities for discussing words other than how words rhymed. Because the content was so intriguing, it dominated the reading. 57 The book, Roll Over, provided the least amount of opportunities to refer to print, other than the “ROLL OVER” sign I made in the shape of a speech bubble. During the reenactment of the story, one child waved the sign attached to a paint stick at the appropriate time, while the others sang the words of the song with me. During the group reading of the book, the story line, which is developed primarily through the pictures, became the focus. In the book, the animals fall out of the bed one at a time, but on the following page the animal is sleeping somewhere in the room. Detecting where the animal found a place to sleep dominated the discussion. For the reenactment I made animal name tags to stick on the children. As I sorted through the name tags looking for the animal name I needed, I had opportunities to refer to letters. “I need my dog name tag. I need a ‘d’ word. Oh, yes. Here is dog with a ‘d’.” The children left the name tags on during their breakfast time which followed the reenactment. Several children made references to other children’s animal names and the letters they recognized during breakfast, which extended their exposure to print. Had I not included the reenactment in this activity, there would have been fewer opportunities to draw children’s attention to letter names. This version of the book was particularly limiting since the words on the page were almost identical with the exception of the number words. Another version of the book combines alliteration and familial animal’s names, so guessing the animal names can be made a predominant feature of the book reading event. For example, Grandma Goose, Grandpa Goat, Brother Beaver, and Sister Seal are the characters named on each page. This second version of the book was available only in miniature, so it was not used in the introductory activity. I introduced it on a second day in a small group, but it was not included in the statistics in Table 5. 58 Table 5 shows the number and percentage of statements or questions I made during the dictated writing activities that were in reference to the name of a letter, word location, rhyming words, or the content of the text being written. Table 5. Metalanguage Frequencies for Child Dictated Charts and Class Book (PM) ’ * Quest/ Quest! ' Quesl State ' State State Ques/ Event Letter Wd Loc Rhyme ment/ ment/ ment/ Con- * j , ’ Letter Wd Loc Rhym tent Eensie O 0 O 25% 20% 0 0 Wensie (3) (4) Spider Chart Spring 33% 76% 0 58% 30% O 0 is Coming (1) (19) (7) (6) Chart Spring 67% 24% 0 20% 50% 0 0 Class Bk (2) (6) (2) Q0) 60= 5% 42% 0 20% 33% 0 0 Total (3) (25) (12) (20) In the child dictated chart and book writing activities in Phase I, the references to word and word location were 75% of all metalanguage statements or questions made outside of the words of the text. Clearly, the language environment created by these activities was rich in metalanguage references and focused children on word location. For example, “Where is the word, ‘that?’ was embedded in the “Spring is Coming” refrain, “That is how I know. That is how I know.” I chose the word ‘that’ because the children always said the word ‘that’ with very strong emphasis. I also drew symbols over the words ‘rain’, ‘flowers’, and ‘grass’ during the second reading of the chart. The modified rebus format made correct responses to questions referencing these words more accessible to the children, increasing opportunities for me to discuss the print. 59 Discourse Analysis: Sequential Organization of Discourse Wells (1996) has argued that the craft of teaching is enacted at the micro level within the ‘episodes of discourse’. The sequence of the exchanges within the dialogue is of particular interest for understanding how knowledgeable members of a language community engage students in the cultural ways of making meaning. The follow-up move, within a sequence of initiation-response-follow up, in the discourse between teacher and student can be an important juncture for facilitating children’s learning about the topic being discussed. Wells claimed that using the nuclear exchange (I-R-F) was simplistic and not representative of classroom dialogues. He argued for a fiamework that includes a dependent exchange within the nuclear exchange, which can be initiated either by the teacher or the student. The dependent exchange is often initiated by the teacher as a means of building on the student’s contributions and making connections to the personal experience of the student or to other concepts being taught. The following is an analysis of the sequences of exchanges within the episodes of discourse surrounding the focal activities in each of the activity settings, based on the framework of nuclear and dependent exchanges. The intent of this analysis is to uncover the ways that the adult- child interaction may have facilitated the children’s understandings of features and ways of maneuvering within the written language system as a writer and as a reader. Sequence of Discourse Exclangas in Book Reading Setting I begin with the presentation of the analysis of the discourse during the readings of the focal books during Phase I with the pattern book reading group. Two patterns were found during the reading of There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly (Table 6). The first pattern in the event was the I-R-F sequence of initiate (with a question)- 60 response from children-evaluate. The second was the most common pattern sequence during this book reading episode, initiate (with a quesfion)—response-follow up by reading the words of the text containing the desired answer. During the pretest only one child was able to produce a rhyming word to match the prompts. Their most common responses to the rhyming questions were related to the meaning of the word, i.e. bat-ball, head-hat. The interactions during the reading of the first book, There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly, provided some opportunities for drawing their attention to the rhyming words found in the text. As the discourse analysis indicates, I redirected their incorrect responses with the words of the text rather than disconfirming their responses publicly. Table 6. Sequence Analysis of There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly Episode 1: Book Reading Second reading of There Was An Old Lady Who Swallowed A Fly with the whole group: 3 questions about rhyming words. deFFFQPW E F9 F POP Ima-gine THAT she swallowed a CAT. Does cat rhyme with THAT? Yes Yes, it does. She swallowed the cat to catch the bird ...... What chases cats? Dogs. There was an old lady who swallowed a --/ /DOG. What rhymes with dog? That one (pointing to book). Ho-o-g. She went Awhole "hog to swallow that dog. There was an old lady who swallowed a/ /milk COW Sguence of Rhyming Question Immmmmwfi Group Nuc. 1. Inform w/text+ Req. Nuc. R. Inform Nuc. F. Evaluate Nuc. I. Req. Nuc. R. Inform Nuc. F. Confirm with text Nuc. I. Req. Nuc. R. Inform Nuc. F. Reforrnulate with text Nuc.I. Inform w/text. Nuc.R. Inform Nuc. F. Reforrnulate with text 61 Table 6 Continued What rhymes with Cow? Nuc. l. Req. C: Milk. Cow milk Nuc. R. Inform R: HOW. Nuc. F. Reform with text Remember how? Dep. I Req.confirrn I don’t k_n_ow —/ (no R. from children) Toget: HOW/ Dep. F. Confirm R: she swallowed -/ with text emphasis Toget: /a COW Nuc. 1. Inform C: She’s fat Nuc. R. Repeat C: She’s fat R: She is. She-e~swallowed a cow to catch the... Nuc. F. Confirm The introduction of the second book, Mary Wore Her Red Dress, occurred in a small group of five or six children who moved in and out of the group arrangement. I focused their attention on the development of the story line of the pattern book, which was accomplished through colored text backgrounds and a corresponding color on a particular item of clothing on each new character. The plot of the story is developed through the pictures and not the words, as the words depict only the names of the characters and color of the articles of clothing they wear to the birthday party. Children have to use inferential thinking to determine the main characters and the main events. The first line of questions helped to establish the obvious features of the story elements. Because the words were repetitive and built around children’s names, the focus of attention was easily shifted to the first letter of the character’s name, which was always the first word on the page. Most of the children could identify the first letter in their names when presented on their name tags. Given the children’s background knowledge, I attempted to capitalize on letter identification opportunities within the book reading episodes. 62 The discourse analysis of the first reading of Mary Wore Her Red Dress is in Table 7. Within the sequence of exchanges, the predominant pattern was the lack of verbal responses in the response slot. The children either responded by pointing or with nonverbal cues that were so tentative I did not acknowledge them. Instead, the tendency was to answer my own question by pointing to the text. The primary functions of the initiating move were: inform (verbal and nonverbal), expand or restate, or request confirmation. Table 7. Sequence Analysis of First Reading of Mary Wore Her Red Dress Episode 2: Book Reading First reading of Mary Wore Her Red Dress. There were four comments related to words or letters. Predictive questions or retelling questions dominated the interactions. I controlled the book and modeled pointing to text. Secprence of Story Line Questions and I_rapsition to Letter Location Questirmp Nuc. I. Req. R: Who is wearing the yellow sweater? Nuc. R. Nonverbal C: (point to the girl with the yellow sweater) Nuc. F. Inform R' Katy is wearing the yellow sweater. + Extend Katy wore her yellow sweater... w/words of text R: Where are they going? Nuc. I. Req. Where is that? Dep. I. Reform Req. Dep. R Nonverb C: (points to picture) Dep. F.Confirm+ R: To her house? Yeah. Evaluate Dep. 1. Expand w/ They look like they are doing something"? question intonation Dep. R. Inform C: Presents. Dep. F. Evaluate+ R: Yeah presents. Why do you think they are Dep. I. Req carrying presents? Dep. R. Req for C: Party? confirmation R: Yeah, a birthday party at her house. Dep. F. Eval+ Expand R: Now we have a new color. He has on bl—ue jeans. Nuc. 1. Inform Doesn’t he? +Req. confirm See the color blue. Dep. I. Req. 63 Table 7 Continued (pointed to Ben in picture) His name is flap and it has the same letter ‘b’ as in blue, doesn’t it? C: Blue R: Ben wore his blue jeans, blue jean, blue jeans. Ben wore his blue jeans all day long. Bobbie: ‘b’ R: That’s right. flap and Bobbie start with ‘b’ and blue starts with a ‘b’. And this is Amanda here.(pointing to the word Amanda) Bobbie: B. R: A, isn’t it? (pointed to letter ‘A’) And there’s another ‘b’ in brown (pointed to brown) That’s a funny color brown. OK. Amanda wore her brown bandana, brown bandana, brown bandana, all day long. Next page. R: Oh that’s like your purple, isn’t it? His name is Ryan. It starts with an R. (pointed to R) Ryan wore his purple, C: (child pointed to text) R: We’re down here. (redirecting the pointing to words on bottom) (Continued reading pages: Ryan wore his purple pants and Stacy wore her violet ribbons. No dialogue) Next page. Dep. F. Confirm w/nonverbal Dep. 1. Inform +Expand + confirm Dep. R.Confirm Dep. F. Expand w/text Nuc. 1. Inform Nuc. R.Refonn Nuc. Ia. Inform+ w/nonverbal Dep. Ib. Inform Dep. Ra. Reform +Req. Confirm Dep.F.a.Confirm Nonverbal Dep. Rb. Inform +C0nf w/text Dep. Fb. Confirm nonverbal Dep. 1. Inform Inform w/text Nuc. 1. Inform Nonverb +Inform +Confirm nonverbal +Confirm w/text Nuc.R.Nonverbal Nuc. F. Redirect verbal & nonverb R: Who is wearing the orange shirt? Nuc. I. Req. C: (child pointed to picture) Nuc. R. Nonverb R: His name is Kenny with a ‘K’. (pointed to K) Nuc. F. Inform +confirm Next page. nonverbal R: Who is wearing the pink hat? This one has a question (pointed to? mark on page). Nuc. I. Req. Who wore the yellow sweater? (long pause) Dep. 1. Inform 64 Table 7 Continued +nonverbal That was Katy. (pointed to picture of Katy on previous Nuc. I. Reform quest page) (no response) Who wore her pink hot, pink hat, pink hat? Who wore Nuc. F.1nform w/text her pink hat all day long? & nonverbal For the second reading of, Mary Wore Her Red Dress, the children were invited to control the book and take turns pointing to the words. Because the children were focused on pointing while I sang the words of the text, the interaction exchanges were largely nonverbal. Another interesting difference in this episode was that the children initiated many of the exchanges through their readiness to point. With their fingers poised on the page, I corrected them with a verbal and nonverbal cue before beginning to read. If I saw they were pointing near the beginning word, I would begin singing based on their apparent readiness to begin. I redirected older children who knew more letters more often than I redirected the three-year-old girl who knew zero letters on the pretest. I let her interpret the pointing task without too much interference or redirection. I had provided two copies of this book to the group, allowing K. to have her own copy of the book. She often sat next to an older child who was also pointing as I sang the text. She gave careful attention to being on the correct page and checked her position by frequently looking at the older child’s book. The episode that followed, which is depicted in Table 8, began with an older four- year-old girl who knew zero letters at the pretest. She was tentative about where to start, but very absorbed in the pointing task once I began to sing. The third child in this set of interactions was T. who knew lots of letters and had a more assertive personality. I challenged her to be more accurate in her pointing as moved her finger independently, left to right, and within close proximity to the words being sung. 65 Table 8. Sequence Analysis of Second Reading of Mary Wore Her Red Dress Episode 3: Book Reading Second reading of Mary Wore Her Red Dress gave opportunities for T., K., A., and N. to point to the words with my direction. There were seven references to letters, two where to start statements, and two word location exchanges. C: (pointing to wrong place) R: Start right here (I put her finger on the first letter). Continued reading the page. Next page. R: (with K. pointing) Here’s Ryan. (I pointed to the word Ryan.) Ryan wore his purple pants, purple pants, purple pants. Ryan wore his purple pants, here’s all. All with an ‘A.’ All day long. C: (with T. pointing on first word) R: Stacy wore her violet ribbons. See here’s violet with a ‘v’.(quickly pointed to ‘v’) C: (continued to point) R: Violet ribbons, violet ribbons. Stacy wore her, point to violet when you say violet.(pointed to violet) C: (pointed to text but not on correct words) R: violet ribbons, all day long. Here’s the word violet. Statement)! Nonverbal Interactions Nuc. I. Nonverbal Nuc. R. Inform Nuc. F .Redir +Nonverb Nuc. 1. Inform verbal & nonverb Nuc. R Nonverb Nuc. F. Redirect nonverb Nuc. I. nonverb Nuc. R. Confirm w/text Nuc. 1. Inform verbal & nonverb Nuc. R. Nonverb Nuc. F. Confirm w/text Nuc.I. Redirect Verb & nonverb Nuc.R. nonverb Nuc. F. Inform verb & nonverb The episode outlined in Table 9 illustrates exchanges focusing more explicitly on letter identification and location. This episode provided opportunities to work with a three-year-old girl who was an active participant in reading this book. The small cardboard version of Mary Wore Her Red Dress was her favorite book. As soon as I entered the carpet area, she would seek me out with this book in hand, hoping I would 66 read/sing so she could point. On this day, I actively looked for opportunities to have her locate the first letter of her name which appeared on four pages of the book. Table 9. Sequence Analysis of Third Reading of Mary Wore Her Red Dress Episode 4: Book Reading Third reading gave opportunities for D., K., T., K. to point. K. got the most instruction on letter and word location. There were four references to letters, four references to word location, two using the word ‘word’ directed toward K. R: OK, K.’s going to do Kenny. And that starts like your name, doesn’t it? K? (K. nodded) ‘K’(pointed to ‘K’ in text) K: (put finger on ‘K’ ready to start) R: Kenny wore his orange shirt, orange shirt, orange shirt. Kenny wore, down here, down here (moved her hand down to bottom of next page) Kenny wore his orange shirt all day lo~you can see the word orange cause it has an ‘O’ in it. See. There’s 0- orange, ‘0’. (pointed to ‘0’) C: And here’s orange too. R: Yeah, that’s right. Orange has ‘0’ in it. (Kim was tapping finger on the word Kenny while looking up at me.) R: OK, where’s the word Kenny, K.? Show me Kenny. K: (put her finger right on the letter K in Kenny) R: Yeah, that’s right! Sequence for Letter and Word Location Nuc. 1. Hold floor. Inform +Req.confirm Nuc. R. Nonverbal Nuc. F. Inform verbal & nonverbal Nuc. I. Nonverbal Nuc. R. Confirm by reading text Nuc. I. Redirect verb & nonverb Nuc. R. Nonverbal Nuc. F. Confum by reading text Nuc. 1. Inform. Nuc. R.Eval +Confirm Nuc. F. Evaluate Inform Nuc. I. Req. Nuc. R.Nonverb Nuc. F. Eval 67 Sequences of Discourse Exch_anges in Child-Dictated Writing The language basis of the writing for the chart writing activity was familiar songs and rhymes comprising known oral texts. I began by having the children sing the rhyme, “The Eensie Weensie Spider” and doing the finger motions. Once their familiarity with the rhyme had been established, I proposed that we write it down on the chart. They were eager participants, but their singing was much faster than my writing, which caused many starts and stops. After each line of writing, I pointed to the text I had written and said each word. After four lines of print, we sang it together and then continued with the dictation. After the song was recorded, I invited individual children to point while we sang. Some children became bored and left the group but would circle back around to see what we were doing next and check for the availability of a turn. We also wrote, on the first day of Phase I, the words to a song about spring the teacher had taught them during circle time. The verses were expandable and the group had decided on four different verses depicting signs of spring, which we recorded on four different charts. The following dialogue, in Table 10, was captured as the children dictated the first chart. The analysis of the sequence of triadic exchanges (Wells, 1996) revealed that the discourse followed a dual track for at least part of the dictation episode. Although the children sang segments of the verse at a time, they were ahead of me. I slowly said each word as I wrote it, and simultaneously they were singing. I ignored their contributions and redirected their attention by repeating and pointing to the lines of print I had created at the end of each line. At the beginning of the episode there was little synchrony between my writing and their singing. By the end of the writing episode the analysis reveals a shift in the pattern. They began to offer the next word in the song in rhythm 68 with my writing. The last section of discourse began to resemble a jointly constructed text. Within this text was an interesting point of negotiation between the children and me on the precise words of the text. I used the words “Eensie Weensie” throughout the introductory phase although I had noticed that some of the children were using the words, “Itsy Bitsy”. After several repetitions, the video tapes also confirm that the loudest voices changed to “Eensie Weensie”. I had a flannel graph set that had word strips with “Eensie Weensie,” so my goal was to convert them to using these words. Also, I had already written the title on the chart. When the dictation of the first line of the rhyme began, however, there was rebellion in the ranks. One boy stood right next to me with his arms folded across his chest and said, “Itsy Bitsy.” I tried to explain that we were going to use “Eensie Weensie” for our chart. His stern posture reminded me of the importance of preserving the child’s language in such activities. In order to compromise, I drew a line through the words, “Eensie Weensie” and wrote in “Itsy Bitsy”. Before the charts were put on the wall the next day, I rewrote the chart, using “Itsy Bitsy”. Table 10. Sequence Analysis of Child-Dictated Chart Writing Episode 1: Child-Dictated Chart Writing Sequence for Child- DictateCLEamiliar After checking their knowledge of the “Eensie Weensie Song Spider” song, I introduced the writing activity. R: Now I want to write it down so we can remember.. so we Nuc. 1. Inform can remember. OK, Here it says. I already wrote this part down. The Eensie Weensie Spider. You can tell this is Eensie because it has that letter ‘e’, doesn’t it? Eensie Nuc. I. Req. C: /e Nuc. R. Display C: w/ Dep. 1. Inform R: /Weensie Dep. R.Reject (ignore)+ 69 Table 10 Continued C: and s/ R: /and spider (pointing to the first letter of each word) Now I’m/ C: Itsy Bitsy Spider (pointing to the words on the chart) R: /Spider Yeah, that’s right and that’s all it says. Eensie Weensie Spider. (folding the chart to a clean page.) Now on THIS side, we need to write down all the rest of it. So what’s the rest, well let’s write C: / T he itsy bitsy spider R: Oh——(writing quickly) C: went up the water spout. Down came the/ Tog: /rain and washed the spider out. Out came the sun and dried up all the rain. And the itsy bitsy spider went up the spout again. Nuc. I. Inform Nuc. R. Expand Dep.I.Inform + nonverb Dep.R. Repeat Dep.F. Eval +Expand verbal & nonverbal Nuc.I. Inform Nuc. R. Confirm by joining R: I got a cramp. OK... .up...the water.. Nuc. 1. Inform ../sp_qut. C: /spput. Nuc. R. Repeat R: OK, I am slow. You guys are fast! I am slow at writing. Nuc. F. Justify OK, so here it is (pointing to each word).The Nuc. 1. Inform Tog: Eensie Weensie spider went up the wa-ater spout. verbal & nonverbal C: I did itl! (3 year old boy). Nuc. R. Inform R: OK" Yeah. Nuc.F. Ack. Eval Now, what’s the next part? Nuc. I. Req. C: Do-/ Nuc. R. Inform R: /do-own. That’s right. It needs a Nuc. F. Confirm + ‘d’, doesn’t it? Down (beg. to write) Dep. 1.] Inform +Req C: Down ..and washed Dep. R.l Repeat + The spider out Extend R: came./ C: /and the itsy bitsy/ Nuc.I. Inform R. /the. rain . and Dep. R.l Expand C: spider went up the spout again. Nuc. I. Inform C: Can I draw something? Emb. I. Req. Emb.R.Reject/ R: OK. Down came the ra_ip_ (pointing to each word) Now I Ignore need a-and Nuc. 1. Inform + A-n-d (writing) wa-a-ashed (writing) Req C: the spider/ Nuc.R. Inform R: /_th_-_e[ Nuc.F.Confirm C: /spider/ Nuc. 1. Inform R: /spider/ Nuc.R.Conf-Repeat 70 Table 10 Continued 30.790??? 3.3.0.7.”? FPO .7? .0 /9at_/ Yeah. Spider. OhI don’t have enough room on this line so I’m going to have to make it little.(pointing to the empty spot)(wrote in ‘out’.) flashed the spider OUt. (pointing to each word while reading) Hey, R. has a spider (child had toy spider he had brought from home). That’s right. Now what comes after, and washed the spider out? Out come the sun. Out came the sun. Ok, Q;u_-_t (writing) Ca-me./ /the sun A-a-a-nd (writing) Washed it all away. That’s right. And dri-ied up a-a-all . th-e . /ra-in (writing) /rain/ OK let’s see what I have so farAOK There’s one part you forgot. What? (undecipherable) Yes, that’s right. I haven’t written that part yet. Here we go. You want to point? Tog: (child pointed on first line alone. I pointed and the child .7??? .780 pointed to words ahead of me) The eensie weensie spi- ider..went up. the. water spout. Down came the..rain. and washed the spider out. There’s the pu_t. The little out.(I held finger on ‘out’) _O_u;._.came the sun..and dried up all the rain. Oh, now we need some more, don’t we?(turn page to clean sheet) And what’s the next part? The itsy bitsy spider goes up the water spout again.(fast) There you go. Ok, so. A-nd (writing) th-e We’re doing Eensie Weesie Itsy Bitsy (standing with arms folded) Oh, Itsy Bitsy. Ok. Well, should we do Itsy? (wrote above Eensie Weesie) If you want the word Itsy you have to go like this. This is Itsy and this is Eensie. Nuc. R. Inform Nuc. F. Eval. +Nuc.I Inform Verb & nonverb Emb. 1. Inform EmbR. Eval + Redirect Nuc. 1. Inform Nuc. R. Repeat/redirect Nuc. F. Inform Nuc. 1. Inform Nuc. R.Inform Nuc. F.Eval+ Expand Nuc. F. Repeat Nuc. I. Req. Dep.I Inform + Dep. R. Req. Dep. F. Inform Dep. F.Eval. + Justify Nuc. I. Req. Nuc. R. Nonverbal Nuc. F. Nonverbal & verbal w/text Dep. I. Inform Verbal and nonverbal Nuc. 1. Inform Nuc. R. Joint pt Nuc. F. Req. Nuc. I. Req. Nuc. R. Inform Nuc. F. Confirm Nuc. I. Inform Nuc. R. Reject Nuc. F. Reform + Dep. 1. Inform Verbal and nonverbal 71 Table 10 continued R: C: R: FPO .780 5’0 FPQFPQPPQWQ (laugh)You want Itsy Bitsy? (child turned away then turned back) There’s Itsy Bitsy. And this is Eensie Weensie down here... ..spider. .. .(writing) Find. Find? Went? Went up. Oh went up ..the. .(writing) libel /spput/ /smut/ /again, right? Again. Can I... No, not now. Here we go. A-gain. Ou-Kay. Good, now we have the whole thing, don’t we. Can I do it? (turning pages back to beginning) Ok, I want somebody to POInt. (3 bids for a turn) ME-E-EE Ok, you had a turn, why don’t you sit down. We’ll let T. have a turn. OK. Now here is the name of it. (I pointed) The Eensie Weensie Spider. (T. pointed to each word in title) OK (I pointed to first word on next page from over the top of the chart. T. and S. began to point together under my finger. I was on the top of the word and they were under the word. They moved their fingers as I moved mine on first 3 lines, but were ahead of me and onto the next line before “the spider out”) The itsy bitsy spi-der went up the water spout... Down came the rain and washed the spider. Out. There’s the word p_u_t. (they corrected their pointing back to ‘out’.) Out came the sun and dried up all the rain. (turned page) (They began pointing without me on the first line. I joined them on the second line). And the itsy bitsy spider, went up the spout again That’s right. Very good. Now (turned page to clean page) Can we draw? Now we are going to write... .(wrote “Spring is Coming” song) Dep. I. Req. Dep. R. Confirm + Expand Nuc. [Inform Nuc. R. Inform Dep. I. Req. Dep. R. Inform Dep. F. Confirm + Nuc. 1. Inform Nuc. R.Repeat Nuc. F. Inform+Req. conf Emb. 1. Request Emb. R. Reject+ Redirect by repeat Emb. F. Request Nuc. 1. Request Nuc. R. Req. Nuc. F. Reject + Nuc. I. Eval, Inform, Req. Nuc. 1. Inform Verb & nonverb Nuc. R. Reform nonverbal Nuc. 1. Inform Nuc. R. Joint pointing Nuc. F. Eval. Emb. I. Req. Emb. R. Ignore 72 Once the charts were jointly constructed, they were attached to the wall at eye level in the library corner. Three girls were avid finger point readers, often starting to point and sing the song on their own without my assistance. Two of the girls were five years old and one was four years old. The four year old and one of the five year olds knew all the letters of the alphabet. The episode in Table 11 was the first joint reading of the charts after they had been placed on the wall. I had drawn a spider image above the word spider which appears several times in the text in anticipation of opportunities to draw their attention to specific words and to help them orient their voices to certain words when finger pointing. The analysis of the sequence of exchanges revealed several dependent exchanges within the nuclear exchanges. Drawing on arguments made by Stone (1993) and Rogoff (1982), nonverbal communication plays an important role in the scaffolding processes within adult-child interactions. Many of the responses and initiating moves were coupled with nonverbal moves within the following episode. As participant researcher, my coding of the moves was based on knowledge of my goals within the exchanges and knowledge of the competencies of the children. Furthermore, Rogoff and Gauvain (1986) argued that the goals of participants within an activity setting can be determined by the outcomes or actions that occur within the activity. In several instances the initiating move was nonverbal and could have been ignored by a casual observer, but the presence of an action response of either the adult or the child signaled the implied request on the part of the initiator. For example, the Opening exchange does not contain a direct invitation to finger point read on the part of the adult or the child. The invitation to initiate an exchange is implied by the action of the child who is engaged in the activity. 73 When I joined the child in singing the text, no verbal or nonverbal rejections were made, thus implying an acceptance of my joint participation. The first two exchanges were a preparatory phase of the episode and served as consensus building for the roles within the activity. Nonverbal moves served a communicative function in all three types of moves, initiate-reply-follow-up. A nonverbal move of poising the finger on the chart served to initiate a turn to supply information (where to point). As a reply or follow-up move, a nonverbal pointing gesture was found to function as an informing reply and as a confirming or informing follow-up move, either by itself or coupled with a verbal response. Joining voices on the words of the text served a communicative function in two ways. In the first case, I joined in with the child in singing the text after she had initiated the singing, thus it was considered a confirmation type of response on my part. However, later in the episode, the child seemed to have lost her place and could not focus her pointing. At that point I picked up singing with more stress at the beginning of the line in order to help her refocus. This move was considered as a supply move, as the child needed support in order to continue. Another supply move was given at the point in the episode where the child was pointing to a letter, paused and looked at me. I assumed she needed me to supply her with the name of the letter. I have made a distinction between an inform move and a supply move based on the information held by the person making the request for information. The supply move implies the child is in a more desperate situation within the activity and ‘needs’ information. The inform move is more generally applied to giving information whether 74 or not the recipient has requested it. The example in this episode was in the form of an unknown-answer question, whereas known-answer questions asked by adults require the child to provide the requested information although the request was more for teaching purposes not for continued performance within the interaction. Wells (1996) has claimed that the act of teaching can be found in the dialogic exchanges of discourse within activities. He has argued that the choice a teacher makes in follow-up moves within the exchange distinguishes the type of teaching enacted and possibly the effectiveness of the instruction. He discussed four possible choices for follow-up moves: accept, reject, evaluate or comment. Within the comment move teachers could initiate dependent exchanges by expanding on a student’s response. Or in place of a reject move, an adult could reforrnulate the student’s response. In the following episode, in Table 11, an interesting pattern appeared within the sequences of exchanges that followed a nonverbal redirection move. The sequence of this type of exchange was as follows. The nuclear follow-up move was an evaluative redirection of the child’s pointing by saying and pointing to the correct word using stronger elocutionary force on the key words. Although the adult move was a follow-up move, the child interpreted it as a request to reply with the corrected response or an I- initiating move. Thus, the follow-up move was coded both as a follow-up and an implied initiating move for a dependent exchange. Two sequences of this type were found in T. ’5 finger pointing turn. The focus words for these exchanges were “that’s how I know” found in the refiain, and “flowers growing”. 75 Table l 1. Sequence Analysis of Finger Point Reading of Child-Dictated Chart (Day 2) Episode 2: Finger Point Readingof Child-Dictated Chaps Children took turns pointing and singing with the charts produced on earlier days. This type of finger point joint activity occurred each day of the study. T: (pointing to chart alone. I joined her. Her voice was inaudible as she pointed and sang softly. R: And the itsy bitsy spider goes up the spout again. Where’s the word ‘spider’? Show me ‘spider’. Yeah, there’s the spider word. There you go. Where is the word ‘Qia’? (pointed to rain) Good What letter does rain start with? (pointing to rain) : /r/ /r/ /r/ ‘r’, ‘a’, (locked at me) Ci, ’I’ (looked at me) 6“, ‘n’ (she crawled away) R: OK" Good. Where’s the word pap? (ten second pause) (S. was nearby getting a book) R: Maybe S. would like to point. S: (puts finger on chart title, ready to start) Tog: The Itsy Bitsy Spider (finger pointed perfectly to each word as she sang) S: Went up the water spout (on the first line of verse, ended with finger on spider) R: (pointed to spout) Here’s appat. And here’s spider (pointed to spider). S: (Quickly tapped words after me, then began on next line) Tog: Down came the rain and washed the spider out. T: (T. put finger on ‘s’ on “Spring”chart. Held her finger there and looked at me. Held it there while S. and I finished the other rhyme) Sequence of Children Finger mint Reading Charts 911M Nuc. I. Verbal & nonverbal Nuc. R. Affirm by joining Nuc. I. Req. Nuc. R. Nonverbal Nuc. F. Eval+ expand Nuc. I. Req. Nuc. R. Nonverbal Nuc. F. Eval + Dep. I. Req. Dep. R. Nonverbal Dep. F. Supply information Dep.2 1. Inform + Dep2. I.Req. Dep.2. R. Supply Dep.2. F. Confirm w/repeat Nuc. 1. Supply. Nuc. R. Confirm by repeating +reject by leaving Nuc. I. Eval+Req Dep. I. Req. Dep. R. Nonverbal Dep. F. Confirm by joining+nonverb Nuc. I. Supply+nonverb Nuc. R. Redirect- nonverb+verb Nuc. F. Supply nonverb Nuc. I. Inform+confirrn by joining Emb. I. Bid Nonverbal Emb. R. Reject/ ignore, nonverbal 76 Table 11 Continued Tog: Out came the sun and ...(pointed left to right line by line but not on correct words) R: Where’s the word spider, S.? S: (pointed to spider and sun) R: Yeah and there’s another ‘5’. Good job. Where’s the word, ‘out’? (long pause) S: (pointing location unknownXlooked at me) R: You remember the word ‘out’? S: (started pointing on first line of text and repeated the rhyme softly until she got to the end of the line “washed the spider out”. She pointed to ‘out’ and looked at me.) R: Out! Good. (she got up and left) T: (put finger on “Spring” chart ready to begin) Tog: Spring is coming, spring is coming T: (pointed accurately to each word in rhythm to the song) Tog: How do I know, how do I know? T: (T. ’s pointing was moving too fast now. She was at the end of rhyme when I started the refrain, “That’s... ) R: I see the flowers growing, I see the flowers growing. That ’s (I reached up and pointed with emphasis on ‘that ’s ’, ‘how’, ‘I ', ‘know’, as I sang each word with more force.) T: (she tapped quickly several times on “That’s how I know”) R: (quickly tapped the word flowers) Where’s the word ‘flowers’? T: (she pointed to ‘ growing’) R: (I pointed to ‘flowers’ then ‘ growing) Flowers growing. T: (pointed to ‘flowers growing’) Flowers growing. (T. moved away from chart to play) Nuc. R. Continued inform Nuc. I. Req. Nuc. R. Nonverbal supply + expand Nuc. F. Eval Nuc. I. Req. Nuc. R. Nonverbal inform +Dep.I. Req nonverbal Dep. R. Reform + Dep.2. I. Req. Dep.2. R. Inform Dep.2. F. Confirm by repeat+Eval Nuc. 1. Bid Nuc. R. Confirm by joining Nuc. I. Nonverbal inform Nuc. R. Joint verbal inform Nuc. F. Eval-redirect nonverbal and verbal with words of text +Dep. I. Implied Req. Dep. R. Inform nonverbal Nuc. I. Nonverbal inform+Req Nuc. R. Supply non- verbal Nuc. F. Redirect nonverbal & verbal + expand= Dep. I. Implied Req. Dep. R. Inform + Reject nonverbal Comparison of Frequencies of Discourse Exchanges The pattern of discourse exchanges across events within each setting revealed distinct changes in the type of initiation moves, but not the follow-up move as would be 77 predicted by earlier research on classroom interactions (Mehan, 1985). In the pattern book activity setting, the book, Mary Wore Her Red Dress, was read several times. On the first reading, I controlled the book which sat on the floor while I pointed and sang. In the second and third book readings, the children controlled the books (two copies) within the joint activity of finger pointing and singing the book text. The sequence analysis of the discourse interchanges within the episodes, in which I controlled the book and introduced the book’s content, revealed that the initiation move was split between informing and requesting. When the children were in control of the book, the request move appeared only once in two episodes. In the third move of the model sequence (follow-up), the typical evaluation function appeared equally as often as informing and confirming using verbal and nonverbal routes. Informing the children about the features of print, either by initiating a topic or ending a topic with a combination of pointing to print and saying the word, was the signature feature of the adult dialogue. Compared to classroom discourse (Mehan, 1985), where the follow-up move is primarily to evaluate, the predominant function of the follow-up move across the episodes of the pattern book readings was to supply information. A similar frequency of informing versus requesting in the initiation move of the interaction was found during the first child-dictated writing episode. Sixty five percent of the initiating moves served an informing function. The follow-up move was dominated by confirmation of the child’s contribution by repeating the child’s words and writing them down. The evaluative comment was made in only 3 out of 27 exchanges. 78 Discussion The metalanguage frequency analysis and the analysis of the sequences of exchanges within the discourse of focus activities provided useful lenses into the language contexts created by the adult-child literacy activities conducted in each group. Statements or questions about the location of words were the highest category of metalanguage references in both groups. Although the design of this study does not allow for conclusions related to causality, the distinct change in the ability of these non- readers to locate words in text, I believe is noteworthy in light of the proportion of discourse interchanges focused on word location within the book reading and dictated writing settings. Future research should be conducted with larger groups of children of similar ages to further our understanding of the role of finger pointing reading activities for promoting young children’s understanding about reading processes and the relationship of speech and print. A predominant feature of the dialogue interchanges in both settings was that the exchanges used information to initiate the exchange, to respond to an initiation move and to follow-up. The information provided the child was largely if not exclusively unsolicited. In the book reading activity setting, the analysis of the sequences of interaction exchanges revealed shifts in the patterns of the exchanges from the first book reading to the subsequent readings in which the children were engaged in joint finger point reading. Fewer questions were asked during the joint finger point reading than during the book initiation episode. In fact, questioning by the adult was superceded by informing as the primary means of engaging children in the joint activity. The replacement of questions 79 with information implies that my goal was to establish a foundation of information for the children whose letter knowledge and knowledge of the functions of print were known to be low. I argue that when an adult asks a question in an exchange with a young child, he or she assumes that the child will be able to supply the information requested. When children are three or four years old and know few if any letter names, a book can become a teaching tool for drawing attention and providing information about the features of the written language within the context of reading. Further analysis of these exchanges revealed that when questions with a specific answer were asked, it was in interaction with a child who knew more letters or whose pointing finger was in close proximity to the correct answer before the question was asked. In other words, I anticipated the child’s ability to supply a correct answer before asking a known-answer question about the print. The initiation into an “activity” in which joint participation is presumed to be a di fficult task for non-reading children was accomplished by a simple invitation to point. I aSked “who wants to point?” or “who wants to be the pointer reader?” The most 3 ur‘prising feature of this “activity” may be that most children were willing to participate i n acting like a reader. I say “acting like” because only moments before I had read and Do i nted to the words. This raises the question, “would they have responded to this i 11"itation to point had I not modeled pointing and reading?” Although the children’s Do i nting in concert with joint singing of the text was never accurate, it provided an entry point for providing specific information about letter names and location of words in print. A key difference in these to literacy activity settings was the coordination of S‘3eaking and pointing by the children. In the book reading setting, rarely did the child 80 who was pointing also recite the text. I recited the text and encouraged the children within the small group circle to recite it with me. They would join in on key repetitive portions of the text, but the pointer reader focused on moving the finger along the text while I recited or the group recited the words. In contrast, in the dictated chart writing activity setting, the child who was the pointer-reader always recited the text as they pointed. Several children pointed and recited the chart texts independently when I was not in the circle. It is assumed that they were able to recite the text because it was a familiar oral text, whereas the story book was a new text and would take several repeated readings for the children to attain oral fluency of the text without the assistance of an adult. 81 CHAPTER FIVE PARTICIPATION ACROSS TIME During the event frame for the adult-child interactions, the children were free to browse a book by themselves or to listen to an adult read if any were present. In the absence of adults actively engaging children in book reading, some children simply carried books around the room. Other children managed to aimlessly wander around the room without a book or to interact playfully with other children. While I was present in the library area, I either responded to a child’s request to read a book of their choosing, introduced a target book, or engaged children in dictating stories to me (only PM group in Phase I) and rereading of familiar oral texts. Children who joined me in pointing or watching me point/read or write were free to move in and out of the activity as their interest dictated. Because the participation structures were Open and fluid in the time frame used for the adult-led finger point reading interactions, participation time is a neutral, unbiased index of their natural interest in various activities. What proved daunting was finding a more detailed measure of the time specific children spent participating in the focus literacy interactions, one that could help us understand how these literacy events contributed to children’s literacy development. The analysis of the videotapes began with a coding scheme to determine the overall frequency of specific independent behaviors of each target child, using time sampling methodology. The coding scheme evolved from repeated viewing of the videotapes to identify the range of behaviors presented. The frequencies obtained from such coding gave information regarding the 82 level of participation of each child within the time frames used for the adult-led activity structures under investigation. Since the goal of the activity settings was to make more visible the invisible reading process of ‘where a reader looks when reading,’ direct exposure to an adult pointing to text while reading was of particular interest as was the amount of time a child spent engaged in pointing to text. Another promising category of behavior was watching another child within the small group point while I read the text, an index of vicarious finger pointing if you will. The frequency data analysis measured the amount of time the target children were within the small group setting with me, observing or participating in finger point reading. Observation of finger point reading was calculated for children sitting near me and in direct view of the text while I was demonstrating finger point reading of text or while another child was finger point reading under my guidance. Watching me point and read was scored separately from watching another child point while I read the words. The two scores were also added together for a third value representing total amount of time observing finger point reading. The amount of time each child engaged in the act of pointing to text either under my direction or on their own was coded at the beginning of each 15 second interval. The measure represents participation in minutes and quarter minutes. Some attempt was made to calculate the amount of time children were engaged in book browsing by themselves or with another adult and the amount of time spent without a book. However, the limitations of the camera angle did not allow for an accurate measure, since my interactions were the center focus of the camera lens and some children wandered out of view. What could be observed was recorded but not considered 83 for statistical comparison. Only general patterns of participation of target children could be inferred from the video tapes for children who did not participate directly with me. Relationship of Time Sa_r_r_ipli_ng of Participationflmd Outcome Measures Comparison of a three-year old from each setting One three-year-old girl in the pattern book reading group spent nine times as many minutes engaging in finger pointing to text while I read than all the other target children in this setting. On the pretest 9 measure, “where does it say?” or “where is the word___ ’, this three-year—old girl pointed to the pictures on all prompts. She shifted to pointing to a mixture of locations on the mid test (2 text and 4 picture responses) and post test (5 text and 1 picture response). If a child responded by pointing to pictures on some requests and to the text on other requests, the child was assigned to the “mixed” category. This particular three-year-old girl was considered “mixed” at the mid test and post test. Had the coding scheme been set up as a percentage of text versus picture responses, this child’s performance would have indicated a stronger shift from mid test to post test. It could be argued that her high level of participation may have contributed to this apparent shift in focus from pictures to print. However, a three-year old boy in the dictated writing group made more definitive changes in responses without direct participation. In the dictated chart writing group, the one three-year-old boy spent one and a half minutes pointing to text while a five-year-old child spent nine minutes pointing to text. Surprisingly, the three-year-old child in this group was able to locate one word on the mid test and two words on the post test compared to zero words on the pretest, although he knew zero letters at the pretest and post test. His responses to “where does it sayx?” or “where is the word ?” changed from pointing to the pictures on all 84 prompts on the pretest to a mixed set of responses on the mid test, and finally to pointing to the text on all prompts on the post test. His direct participation in pointing to text was low, but the amount of time he spent observing was the highest of all the children in the dictated writing setting (20 V2 minutes observing me write and point or observing other children point). The amount of time he spent pointing to text was also mediated by the presence of the more advanced five-year-old children who were aggressive participants. The older children actively sought turns to point, then moved out of the group when they were not directly involved in pointing. The question remains, did the modeling of the older children influence his change of responses from pictures to text without direct participation in finger point reading? Since he was the only three-year old in the dictated writing group and the three-year old girl discussed above was the only three-year old in the pattern book reading group, the role of age and participation (direct or indirect) are inconclusive. Since the responses of both children clearly indicate a shift away from pictures as the source of the message in the assessment settings, the question as to the mechanisms for this change remains unanswered. One possible explanation could be that some experience with pointing is enough to alert children to where readers look when reading and that more than a minimum threshold amount of time engaged in pointing does not proportionately relate to changes in their cognitive processing of text. Comparison of five-years in each seging. There was only one five-year old in the pattern book reading group. This five-year-old girl spent only one half a minute in finger pointing of text during Phase 1, although she was able to locate five words in the text on the mid test compared to the one word she located on the pretest. She pointed exclusively 85 to the words on pretest, mid test and post test when asked, “where does it say?” All the children shifted categories on this measure in a positive direction in both groups, indicating they were more aware of the location of the message in books. The three five-year-old children in dictated writing group were good models of pointing for the children who watched. They were self-directed and nearly accurate. Two of the five-year-old girls and one four-year-old girl moved their fingers systematically to the cadence of the words as they sang, although they were often one word behind or ahead of their spoken words. When they came to the end of the line, they sometimes held their finger in place until they had finished singing the last word of the phrase. A common characteristic of all the more proficient pointers was starting to sing while pointing to the title. They would start singing and pointing on the first word on the page, although the first word was in the title. In contrast, in the dictated writing group one five-year old boy, who knew zero letters, actively watched the more competent girls while they pointed and sang; however, he pointed to the pictures on the pretest and mid test. On the post test he had mixed responses to the requests to point to “where does it say—7” For this child, watching more competent children did not appear to influence his responses. One five-year old boy in the pattern book reading group, who knew zero letters, had less than one minute of participation through watching and zero through direct finger pointing; yet, his responses changed from a mixed response on the pretest to all words on the mid and post test. 86 Discussion Griffin and Cole (1984), who studied play activities within classroom settings, noted that a child’s participation in the educational activity is not guaranteed, and thus the activity structure cannot be solely responsible for the mental development of the children in the classroom setting. Like other researchers who are interested in the role of the setting in children’s development, including the role of the adults within the setting, in this study, I sought to explicate both the design of the interactions within the setting and the participation levels of children within the settings. The results of the time sampling analysis answered some questions and raised other questions. Clearly, the age of the children was an important influence on participation levels in both groups, but the opposite relationship of age and participation in each setting raises more questions about how age influenced their participation. Participation in the finger point reading of books did not appear to be dependent on their prior knowledge of literacy concepts. Children with no letter knowledge were more anxious to try to finger point read than children who knew some letters. However, the belief in their ability to read was congruent with their participation levels. One five- year-old girl was adamant about not knowing how to read and made no bids to participate in pointing to text, while the two, younger, high level participants both claimed they could read. Interestingly enough, on the mid-test this five year old girl was the only child who read the words, “Roll Over” on the prompt sheet. She was not present on the day of the initial reading and reenactment of Roll Over, but had inevitably seen the sign on subsequent days, as it was a popular prop during the open book browsing segment. 87 The pattern of participation was opposite for children in the child-dictated writing group. The children with the most knowledge of letters were the most active participants, and yet they were just as adamant about not knowing how to read on the pretest. The two children, who knew zero letters at pre and post test, claimed they could read but participated in the finger point reading very little, although they were interested observers. It appears that knowing some letters was more characteristic of the higher level participants in the dictated chart writing/reading activity setting. The patterns of participation may have been related to personality type as much as literacy knowledge, since the participation structures were so Open. In each group, the children participating the most in the finger point reading tasks were generally assertive in getting and keeping materials in other activities throughout the day. Although I had a conscious goal of involving children who showed an interest, I seldom forced turn taking or held the floor for children who were not within the circle. After reviewing the video tapes a second time to examine the question of children bidding for turns, it was noted that only the two of the most active participants in each group actually asked for turns and each of them did so repeatedly. I was aware that each of these highly involved children were controlling the finger point reading activities, but I tried to manage their enthusiasm delicately by holding the floor briefly for less verbal children who were showing some signs of interest. Had this been a more formal setting, turn taking could have been mandated, as is more common in a kindergarten setting. If I had conducted the activities in a more formal, circle time format, the turns could have been more evenly distributed. 88 The issue of participation is particularly acute for preschool settings due to the generally open structures of preschool activities. An exception is circle time, which is typically the most structured period of the day. Because of the interactional nature of the finger point reading activity, participation would always be restricted in a larger group setting and would necessitate a big book (enlarged text). Evidence from this study suggests that for some children watching other children finger point is beneficial for gaining insight into “where readers look” when reading. However, the role of direct participation or peripheral participation by way of watching more competent children is inconclusive from this small set of children. Further investigation of participation levels in open structured settings is need to inform educators of young children of the nature of settings which may be more or less effective in assisting young children in drawing inferences about literacy concepts. Book reading or writing down children’s words may not lead children to the understanding that the message is in the print. Comparing the participation levels of children within similar age groups should be considered for further investigation of the relative impact of literacy interactions in free choice activity settings. A question raised by these results is why the younger children were more attracted to the singable pattern books than the older children. Is it possible that the book type influenced the patterns of participation? 89 CHAPTER SIX PORTRAITS OF FOCUS CHILDREN Introduction In this chapter the focus of the analysis shifts from the groups to the individuals. The question at issue also shifts, from the nature of the settings that promote print awareness and the reading process to the question of who did or did not benefit from the interventions and how does that benefit (or lack of benefit) play itself out, in terms of activities and performance on the key tasks. First, I will analyze the cases of individual children who made large gains on the key outcome measures, namely the TERA-2, letter knowledge and the reading process tasks, after which I describe the cases of two who exhibited little if any gain. The wide range of tasks presented to the children over the course of the study turned out to be fortuitous for creating these individual cases; it meant that we had both breadth (measures on most of the key aspects of early literacy development) and depth (some constructs were measured in multiple ways). Four-Year Old Children Who Made Higher Levels of Change in Knowledge of Literacy Concepts David was a four-year old boy who attended the morning (pattern book reading) group. David’s change in TERA-2 score was the highest in the group for four and five- year old children. David was able to identify eight more letters by the end of the study (1 1-19 letters). When given a choice of books to read, David chose alphabet books almost exclusively. He was very vocal about naming the letters he knew and naming the 90 animals pictured with each letter. David rarely joined me in the finger point reading activities because he was absorbed in looking at the new alphabet books; although, on several occasions he wanted to show me and read to me his alphabet book. It is worth noting that prior to the study, no alphabet books were displayed in the children’s library. David was a very animated child with a great deal of confidence in his ability to read books at the beginning of the study. His response to the question, “can you read this?” was an emphatic, “It says, ‘The United States! ”’ On the post test, however, he declared, “I don’t know this stuff”, suggesting, as others (Munn, 1995) have noted, that his print awareness may have developed to the point that he knew what it meant to really read. David was able to locate one word in the big book text on the pretest and pointed to the text on all but one prompt to, “point to where it says__?” David was able to locate one word at the mid-test but located four words on the post test, using a very accurate voice print match as he recited, “Gus is not happy.” David recognized many children’s names when name cards were held up during circle time and would often read the name cards before they had a chance to respond. David exhibited a growing ability to recognize words and letters in and out of context. While David’s letter recognition and word location skills showed improvement, his name writing actually regressed. On the pretest the letter formation of his name was weak but distinguishable and written in left to right progression. On the mid-test he began writing his name on the right side of the paper and continued writing right to left. On the post test he engaged in some regressive, but ambiguous behavior. He said, “I can’t,” then proceeded to draw two vertical lines for his name and stopped. He concentrated his writing on the word to go with the picture which was two complete rows 91 of symbols (not letters) written in left to right and return left sequence, clearly an indication that he was aware of the directionality of print. Furthermore, while he was writing he said, “I’m trying to write letters.” When I asked if the letters said anything, he replied, “Yes. It says, ‘Quack, quack,’ said the duck.” Interestly, even though his execution shows regression, the talk surrounding the writing of his name suggests grth in metacognitive awareness of what constitutes genuine print and the function(s) it can serve. David also exhibited an apparent regression in book concepts. On the pretest he pointed to the front, back and title without hesitation. On the mid-test he pointed to the words on the back for the title, and on the post test he pointed to the copyright information for the title and to the first page for the back of the book question. I have no explanation for this since he was an avid book reader, although be primarily read alone or with other children. The most plausible explanation is distraction on the day of the post test. Shannon was a girl in the afternoon (dictated chart writing) group who, like David, showed the highest degree of improvement on the TERA-H from pretest to post test. Shannon knew 24 letters on the pretest and named all 26 on the post test. Shannon wrote her name with well formed letters at the pretest and also wrote a string of letters for the word to go with the picture on all three test points; although, she shook her head no or shrugged her shoulders when asked, “What does it say?” on the pretest and mid-test. On the post test, she said her letters said, “Turtle,” under the picture of a duck. Unlike David, Shannon was an active participant in the finger point reading of the dictated chart texts that hung on the walls at eye level in the library area. Shannon usually 92 pointed and recited the text on her own for a few minutes each day before turning her attention to the books. She appeared contemplative and deliberate in making an accurate match between the words she was saying and the text. If she came to the end of the text before she was out of words in the oral text, she would back up and point to the last few words again in order to end the oral text with the written text. Shannon knew the reading started on the first word of the first page of text on the fi- pretest and pointed exclusively to the words on the prompts for, “where does it say ?” on the pretest and mid-test. She located two words on both the mid-test and L post test. She called the text without pictures ‘words’ on all three testing occasions. At H the pretest she did not know what the words were for, but on the post test she said the words were “to read and write.” Shannon consistently responded, “I don’t know” or with a negative head shake on all assessments when asked if she could read. Shannon’s ability to generate rhyming words increased from 0 on the pretest to 3 on the post test. Since her scores were already high on the pretests for the individual measures of reading concepts, dramatic changes were not evident. She was consistent across occasions in her claims for not knowing how to read, where the message of the story was read from, and directionality of name and word writing. She was exceptional in that even though she knew how to write most letters and knew the names of all the letters, she did not claim that any of the letter strings she wrote had a message in them until the post test. The perception of a lack of a message in her writing was consistent with her understanding of her inability to read. She did not appear to ponder the question of needing certain letters as did several other children who knew more than ten letters. Three other children, all 5 year olds in her afternoon group, who 93 knew several (1 1-26) letters and who were able to spell their names, refused to write a word to go with the picture because they did not know which letters they needed for the word they wanted to write. Shannon’s knowledge of letter names and name writing abilities alone did not appear to be enough to lead her to an explicit awareness of the alphabetic principle. Shannon did not demonstrate an awareness of the representative capacity of letters even thought she clearly understood the representative nature of words in print. Shannon’s clusters of knowledge in certain realms and apparent lack of understanding of other aspects of print is consistent with Ferreiro’s (1984) claim that before children come to understand the symbolic nature of letters in speech, they regard them as objects. One assessment illustrates her lack of awareness of the letter/sound relationship of letters in speech. When I asked what sound does ‘T’ make in tiger, she said, “roar.” When I asked what sound does ‘0’ make in the word open, she said, “Shut the window.” For the other letters she said, “I don’t know.” This task was too difficult for most of the children. Only 6 of the 20 children were able to isolate one beginning sound from the eight prompts on either the pretest or post test. Most children had similar responses as Shannon, giving words or sentences associated with the meaning of the word rather than sound value associations. Most five year old children were able to isolate the initial sound of one word with the /s/ in the initial position. One four-year old and one three-year old child also isolated the /s/in the word soap, but gave meaning associations, such as rubbing their hands together or refusing to answer the other prompts on both the pretest and post tests. Shannon’s responses on this task are consistent with the apparent lack of awareness of the alphabetic principle when creating words. 94 The recording of familiar oral texts onto charts and the finger point reading of these texts, apparently, did not bring Shannon any closer to an awareness of the association of letters and speech sounds. Since Shannon was highly interested in the finger point reading task and self-selected to practice pointing and reciting the texts every day of the study, it draws into question the efficacy of this activity for bringing children with extensive letter knowledge to an awareness of the sound symbol relationship of letters. Either more time is needed to develop this awareness or more explicit teaching of letter sounds in the context of the finger point reading task for knowing which words one should be pointing to while reciting the text. Children Who Did Not Showed Marked Changes in Literacy Knowledge Regis was a 4 year old boy in the moming (reading) group whose TERA-II scores indicated a net loss of 7 NCE’s from pretest to post test. Regis knew 4 letters at the pretest and 3 letters at the post test. Regis’s writing regressed from pretest to mid-test. On the pretest he drew 6 distinguishable letters in his name, but on the mid-test only the ‘R’ was a distinguishable letter. He returned to more distinguishable letter formation on the post test, although several letters were superimposed on other letters. His word writing changed from a circle around a drawing of a “turtle with hair” on the pretest to a single zigzag, left to right, line at the mid-test. After the introduction of the writing table after the mid-test assessment, Regis’s writing regressed even further on the post test, where he hurriedly drew a series of hash marks and dots for his word to go with the pictures. When asked, “What does it say?” he replied, “Duck.” During the post test assessment with the big book, he pulled out a small pad of paper he had brought with him from the writing table and wrote me a ticket. This was a 95 favorite activity for Regis during free play after the introduction of the writing table. Everyday he pretended he was a policeman and spent most of the free play segment writing tickets to the teacher, aide, myself, and other children. One and sometimes two other boys joined in this activity but it was the invention of Regis, who carried out appropriate dialogue in connection with the writing of tickets. One day after he gave me a ticket, I asked, “What does it say?” He said, “Numbers.” This response was consistent with his pretest response to the questions about a line of text without pictures. When asked, “What do you see on this paper, he called out random letter names, “0, I,d,e,f,g.” , His response to the follow-up question, “What are they for?” was “for counting.” On the post test the same set of questions produced the following responses: “a,b,c’s” and “to write something.” Ferreiro (1984) and others have noted that prior to their understanding of letters as substitute objects young children often do not distinguish between letters and numbers in their grapheme productions as is illustrated by Regis. Prior to the introduction of the writing table in free time, Regis spent a large portion of his free play time on the computer, either watching others or at the controls. Regis rarely sat in the small group of children taking turns finger point reading the book texts during Phase I of the study. In Phase H he showed more notable interest in the books. After one demonstration of the reading of Brown Bear, Brown Bear, he sat by himself and finger point read the text. On the pretest he pointed to the pictures in response to “where should I start reading?” and mixed his pointing responses between pictures and words for the questions about “where does it say_____ or where is the word______?” On the mid-test and post test he pointed exclusively to the words on all requests. He located one word on 96 both the mid-test and post test. These assessments showed a positive change in his thinking about the function of print and reading processes, but his lack of progress in letter knowledge and print production illustrates the independent nature of some dimensions of literacy knowledge, especially between print awareness and print production. Hiebert ( 1981) has argued that although high correlations between letter naming and later success in beginning reading is well established, instruction in only letter naming would be too narrow a focus. Letter naming is not the only literacy concept young children need to know. Processes of reading and purposes of print develop naturalistically in young children who have access to books and interactions with print. Hiebert’s study was unable to establish an invariant sequence in the development of various aspects of the reading process: functions of print, purposes of reading, and reading skills tested (letter knowledge, auditory and visual discrimination). Generally, concepts were acquired before the pre-reading skills; although the large number of exceptions to this order indicated that the acquisition of the skills and concepts measured do not emerge in a particular order for all children. Like many of the children in Hiebert’s study, Regis exhibited the roots of print awareness, which is emerging prior to letter naming knowledge. The lack of grth over time suggests that, for Regis, the activities in the preschool environment were not sufficient or of long enough duration to impact his letter naming or print production skills. Although knowledge of reading processes and word location skills showed a positive progression over this short intervention. On the pretest he pointed to the pictures on all requests, at the mid test he 97 had mixed responses and on the post test he pointed exclusively to the words on requests to point to “where does it say?” or “where is the word?” Others who have studied print production in young children assert that information given in the environment may not be readily assimilated into their drinking about writing. Ferreiro’s (1986) longitudinal study of Santiago illustrates that some information from the environment is readily assimilated, while other information is not. Santiago took a year to accept that a letter could belong to more than one person. Some concepts take more time for the child to build up from the information provided in the environment. Regis was exposed to only three weeks of experimentation with writing tools. He clearly understood purposes and functions of writing, but the more specific knowledge of letter formation was emerging at a slower rate. The wide variability between children during the preschool years is well established, but the reasons for this variability are not. The analysis of the levels of participation indicated that Regis’s participation in watching me or other children point to text was very low and he never took a turn pointing to text. Even when he was sitting near other boys who were actively looking and pointing to books, his attention appeared to be on other things. He was the very last to join in the circle to act out the Roll Over text, although he had been sitting in the corner watching while I assigned parts, put on the animal name tags, and had each child roll out of bed. Just in time for the last action of the story he moved up into the circle and I assigned him the part of “the boy who said, ‘good night’.” This exemplifies the reluctant nature of his participation in the book reading activities during Phase I. 98 During free play, he picked up the microphone of the tape recorder, pushed the button to start and listened for 15 seconds, and then he put it away. His ambivalent posture toward participation in literacy related activities may be contributing to his lack of progress in constructing knowledge about print concepts. Durkin (1966) and others have found that one characteristic of young children who learn to read before school have a high interest in figuring out the reading and writing puzzle. Conclusion Interest and participation in book reading may partially explain the higher levels of letter knowledge for Shannon and David and the lower levels of letter knowledge for Regis. Participation levels in finger point reading were correlated significantly to capital letter knowledge on the post test, but not the pretest, which also lends support to the value of these types of activities in preschool classrooms, but only IF children actually participate. The open participation framework allowed those who had a high interest in literacy activities to gain access to more information about print through active participation. Children with lower interest were allowed not to participate or only as casual observers. Constructivist theories assume children are actively constructing their new understandings about the world. The more important and yet unanswered question in this study was how to move children from an inactive to an active state. Hind sight indicates that an open participation framework may exclude the very children the study was targeting, those with fewer opportunities to participate with literate adults in literacy interactions in non-school environments. 99 CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION The focus of this study was to provide a descriptive analysis of two types of finger point reading activities conducted with two groups of preschool children attending a Head Start program. Of particular interest were the details of the language environment created by the texts and the adult when text sources varied: repeated readings of pattern books and familiar oral texts dictated by the children and written on wall charts. Individual characteristics of the children, such as letter knowledge, knowledge of reading and writing processes, print concepts, and beliefs about reading, as well as the participation levels of the children were traced across the intervention. Of particular interest was evidence of changes in children’s thinking about concepts of reading and writing processes, word location skills and knowledge of capital letter names. In both literacy activity settings, I scaffolded fmger-point reading with two preschool groups, which consisted of a wide age range (3-5 years old) of children who entered the study with varied amounts of letter name knowledge. Prior studies have indicated that prior letter name knowledge is highly correlated to accuracy in finger-point reading and word location of kindergarteners (Uhry, 1999). Pretest, mid test and post test assessments of literacy concepts were conducted to better understand the relationship of certain types of prior knowledge and the focus skills practiced in the activities and to provide evidence of changes in the children’s views about the relationship of speech and print and reading and writing processes. 100 Nature of the Discourse in Activity Settings: Language Environment To better understand the nature of the activity settings in this study, I used two methods of analyzing the discourse in order to explicate the unique differences in the dialogue in the adult-child interactions within the two settings. The language environments created within the literacy interactions were brought into view by examining the frequency of metalanguage used in each of the settings and the sequences of dialogue interchanges within the literacy events. Questions or statements referring the children to a specific word, letter (by name or sound) or location of a word were used for the metalanguage analysis. Metalangaage. Statements or questions about the location of words were the highest category of metalanguage references made in both settings, and the percentage was highest in the child-dictated writing setting (75%), compared to 46% in the pattern book reading setting. Since the child-dictated writing setting also displayed significant levels of change on the word location measure, the amount of explicit references to words in context appears to be an important factor in raising children’s awareness about the connection between spoken words and written texts. Interaction Frequencies in the Pattern; of Discourse The pattern of discourse interchanges across events within each setting revealed distinct changes in the type of initiation moves but not the follow-up move as was predicted by earlier research on classroom discourse (Mehan, 1985). The sequence analysis of the discourse interchanges within the episodes, in which I controlled the book and introduced the book’s content, revealed that the initiation move was split between informing and requesting, and the requesting move only appeared once when the children 101 ”F ch in per dor \an l'Oui disc< than child Was a ‘21 3 ,2 semng b‘“ the were in control of the book on subsequent readings. The follow-up move, which has more typically been an evaluation move in classroom discourse, was not a dominant type of move. Informing and confirming using verbal and nonverbal routes were distributed equally across the episodes of pattern book reading when children were also engaged in finger point reading. Informing the children either by initiating a topic or ending a topic, using pointing and/or words, appeared to be a more predominant function of the follow- up move across these episodes of pattern book reading and finger point reading with children, than in classroom discourse (Mehan, 1985). A similar frequency of informing versus requesting in the initiation move of the interaction discourse was found during the first child-dictated writing episode. Sixty five percent of the initiation moves were informing functions. The follow-up move was dominated by confirmation of the child’s contribution by repeating the child’s words and writing them down. The evaluative comments were made in only 11% of the exchanges. Classroom discourse embedded in literacy activities that include children as young as three years old had a different pattern than the more researched classroom discourse of elementary age children, in that providing information was more prevalent than requesting information. It also appears to be different than Ninio’s (1981) parent- child picture book reading patterns where drawing attention and requesting a response was a predominant pattern. Non-verbal Inte_ractions in th_e Discourse Prior studies of young children’s interactions with adults in literacy activity settings have made note of the child’s nonverbal behaviors (Dore, 1985; Mehan, 1985), but the majority of studies of classroom discourse interactions have focused primarily on 102 the verbal interactions (Cazden, 1988). The most distinct pattern of discourse in both literacy activity settings under investigation in this preschool classroom was a combination of verbal and non-verbal. In many cases the nonverbal move without any accompanying words functioned as an initiation move to begin a topic or as a response to a request for information. When a nonverbal move functioned alone, it was most often the action of the child and not the adult. The adult most frequently used pointing and verbal labels to inform, respond, or follow-up. The description of the discourse would not have been complete without attention to the nonverbal moves of both the child and the adult for understanding the communication. Conclusions about the role of nonverbal and verbal moves in an interaction around text in classroom settings may appear to be intuitive and without need for further investigation. However, as I pointed out earlier, my field observations over a ten year period have not provided evidence that preschool teachers value pointing to text or writing in front of young children and pointing while reading back the text. The results of this analysis lead to the conclusion that the act of pointing to text in the context of an adult/child interaction around text is a communicative act and is part of the tutorial practice that orients children toward print and the source of the message and can lead children to a better understanding of the relationship of speech and print. Nature of the Activity Settings: Participation In Griffin and Cole’s (1984) discussion of the role of activity in children’s mental development, they asserted that the structure of an activity may be necessary but not sufficient for leading them into new understandings, since children do not necessarily enter into full engagement in the educational activity. Because the children in the current 103 study self-selected to participate fully by taking turns pointing to text, to participate by observing me or other children point, or to not participate, an analysis of which children participated and in what levels of participation they were engaged was very important for understanding the role the activity settings. There was a sharp contrast in the age of the children with the highest level of participation in each setting. The youngest girl (3 years old) finger point read for seven times the minutes of any other participant in the pattern book reading group, whereas the oldest girl (five years old) participated in finger point reading for the most minutes in the child—dictated writing group. The one five year old girl in the pattern book group was turinterested in finger point reading. She sat near me in the circle but browsed another book, looking on only occasionally to the demonstration and finger pointing of the other children within the circle. The youngest boy (3 years old) in the dictated writing group was an interested observer by only on one occasion did he submit to being the finger point reader. The amount of time children spent watching me or other children finger point read also had opposite patterns between the two activity settings. The oldest child in the pattern book reading group watched for the most minutes, while the youngest boy in the child-dictated group watched for the most minutes. Both children with long periods of watching made progress, i.e., they were able to locate words in text at higher levels on the mid and post tests than the pretests. This evidence lends support to the efficacy of participation at varying levels, i.e. watching as well as doing (Rogofi', Mosier, Mistry, & Goncu, 1993), but it does not explain why they did not join into full participation. Other children who also had relatively high levels of watching were unable to locate words. 104 Clearly, more needs to be known about the role of peripheral participation for young children. Another puzzling result, knowledge of capital letters was negatively related to participation levels in the two activity settings and students’ ability to locate words in text. The youngest child who knew zero letters on the pretest was the highest participant in finger point reading in the pattern book activity setting. Despite her high engagement she was never able to locate words in text on the pre, mid or post test, although she located a word in the context of the guided activity. The oldest girl with highest level of participation in the child-dictated activity setting knew only 3 letters on the pretest, yet was able to locate words in text during the introduction of the activity. The levels of participation leave open several questions about the relationship of background knowledge and levels of engagement in these types of activities. However, the most likely explanation of these aberrant findings is the small number of subjects in the study, which might account for unstable results. Stone (1993) raised an issue about the role of individual and developmental differences in instructional activities with children. She argued that the success of scaffolding may be linked to interpersonal factors such as mutual trust between the participants. Since girls were the highest participants in both activity settings, it raises the issue of the influence of gender and mutual trust, which may be a function of gender, on levels of participation. These are questions not addressed in this study, but may have been factors of both participation and cognitive changes in relation to the activity settings. 105 The Contextual Nature of Cognitive Changes The results of the study indicated that irrespective of treatment, the participants demonstrated a positive progression in their thinking on a number of literacy concepts. The results of the Test of Early Reading Ability-2 (TERA-II) (Reid, Hresko, & Hammill, 1989) indicated rapid growth of literacy knowledge for most children. The mean difference between the pre and post test NCE scores on the TERA-II wasl 3 NCE’s. A paired t-test of mean differences showed this as a significant change from pretest to post test for both groups (Group 1, p<.010, n=9; Group 1, p<.011, n=8). These results were consistent with changes in the children’s literacy knowledge found in an experimental design pilot study I conducted the year before in the same Head Start classroom and with the same materials (Miller, 1999). The tutorial and language environment constructed by the adult, the prior knowledge and interests of the child and the range of literacy interactions invited by the choice of text, oral or written, familiar or new, are all layers of the interaction. The individual layers cannot be viewed as separate entities: rather, they work in concert. Each layer creates a context for the other layers. This contextualized view of literacy interactions does not assume generalizability to other settings or to all preschool age children. The conclusions of this study may not generalize to other Head Start classrooms, as the children who attend Head Start classrooms nationwide are extremely diverse. What practitioners and researchers can take from this study is evidence that Head Start preschool settings have the potential to orient children toward print. Most children in this study demonstrated consistent changes in their responses to prompts to locate the 106 message of the text and to locate specific words, although these changes were evident without a relationship to direct participation levels in finger point reading. It is possible that looking on while other more competent children move their fingers under the printed texts may provide enough of a socially supportive environment to lead less knowledgeable children to change their responses from pointing to the pictures as the source of the message to oriented to the words when prompted in the context of a big book. Another possible explanation is that their changed responses were constructed within the assessment interactions and were not due to the literacy activities conducted earlier. However, if the assessment interactions were enough to change their thinking at the mid test and post test on the orientation and word location tasks, then it could have changed their responses on the other tasks, such as the writing tasks, which remained stable across all three assessments. No children in either group pointed to the pictures as the sole source of the message on the post test compared to 20% on the pretest. Only two of the fifteen children changed their responses on the message and language quality of their name and word to go with the picture. The directionality of their name writing improved at mid test but regressed at the post test. All the writing scores were unstable, whereas the orientation to print showed the greatest amount of children changing from one category to another (pointing to the pictures on all requests, pointing to a combination of pictures and text, or pointing to the text on all requests) at the mid test and a smaller increment of positive change at the post test. The consistency of the direction of change for the orientation and word location tasks and the inconsistent 107 Dir WOUI. their direction of change for the writing tasks provides support for the source of the changes being outside the assessment interactions. Questions Raised An important question raised by the study is why children who were active participants at the writing table during free time showed no little or no change on two of the three measures of writing: language quality (use of letters) and message quality. Directionality of their writing (both name and word writing) was the only measure that indicated a positive change. One possible explanation is that adult interactions at the writing table were minimal on most days and non existent on other days. The children experimented with the writing tools and stamped with the ends of the markers which had felt shapes on them. Just as book browsing alone may not be enough to lead children to the understanding of where the message of the story is located, experimentation with markers may not promote letter writing without more explicit interactions with adults about the specifics of writing letters. Modeling of the writing process was conducted earlier in the day in the child-dictated chart writing activities, but the writing scores would indicate that little besides the directionality of written text was transferred into their own conceptualization of the forms of writing. Another explanation for the lack of progress on the language and message writing measures is based on the lack of an appropriate scale for this age group of children and the lack of sensitivity of the writing rubric to small changes in progress on knowledge about writing. The rubric was based on Clay’s ( 1985) assessment of writing of five-year old children. The message quality of their writing in this study was based on their verbal rfisponses to the question, “what does it say?” Since most of the children indicated their 108 writing said something, either words, letters, or numbers on the pretest, the mid and post scores were constrained by a ceiling effect, more specifically a lack of sensitivity to subtle shifts in middle range of this knowledge domain. The next highest scoring was a correctly written word that says what it is. Only one child was able to write a real word, ‘love’. Since most children were unable to write their names accurately, the scoring was too advanced for this age group. In one sense, the students in this study suffered from a both a floor effect and a ceiling effect on the writing measures. Limitations The number of children in each age group in the study, as well as the total number L:- of children in the study limits the conclusions about effects of the activity settings on each age group, especially since children in these age ranges typically have a wide range of knowledge about print. It would be important for educators to know how pointing to text may impact three year olds differently than five year olds who know very few letters. The design and length of the study were also limitations. The two activity settings were not distinct enough to produce distinguishable differences in the kinds of literacy knowledge shaped more by watching an adult write and participation in free writing versus watching an adult point to print in a patterned text in a book, since pointing to text was included in both settings. The length of the study may have also further limited the changes in children’s responses in the other literacy assessments had the two activity settings been conducted over a longer period of time. Final Comments Both types of activity settings were associated with positive changes in children’s knowledge of where to look when reading (reading processes) and the relationship of 109 speech and print (word location). The writing activities were less definitive in their relationship to the children’s knowledge of writing processes. The brevity of the study and the design of the study limited conclusive connections between the contexts and cognitive changes. The discourse analysis revealed that the type of texts used in the book reading settings provided different opportunities for drawing children’s attention to the print as the source of the message or the form of print (letter names). The dictated writing setting provided more opportunities for children to independently point and say the texts since they were already familiar with the words of the text. However, there were no differences between the number of words the children in each group could locate on the post test. The transcribed discourse of language within each literacy event provides insight for teachers and parents about the specifics of the activity of joint reading and pointing to texts from differing sources. This type of study was important especially for those preschool teachers who have little experience and understanding of finger point reading or child-dictated chart writing, and who may not value the informal adult-child interactions in preschool settings as “teaching”. The act of teaching in a preschool classroom is often interpreted as being located in circle time. Encouraging children to look at books is gaining more acceptance, even in low-income classrooms. But the value of the adult-child interactions with books in preschool settings and the type of interactions with books and written text that may promote more rapid gains for five year old children with lower levels of literacy knowledge and low interest in literacy activities are not yet understood. More study is needed of the types of adult-child interactions in 110 preschool classroom environments which effectively lead children with less access to print and less interest in participating in book reading or writing to a clearer understanding of the forms and functions of print. 111 APPENDICES 112 APPENDIX A I Pre, Mid & Post Test Protocol: Book Concepts, Readinjg Processes, Word Location] Child’s Name Date I Concepts of Print # Concepts Prompts Score Comment Give the book to the child with the spine toward the child in a vertical position and upside down. 1 FRONT “Show me the front of this l-Point-correct COVER boo k” response 2. BACK “Show me the back of this 1- point- correct COVER book.” response 3. THE TITLE “Show me the name of this 1- title on cover or book.” title page. 4. BEGIN- “Show me with your finger 1- words NING OF where I should read on this (no score for TEXT pafi” pictures). 5. DIREC— “Where do I go next?” l-pointing to the next TION OF page or next line. STORY 6. WORD After reading a single line of Score 1 for each word LOCA- text, ask, “Where is the word located correctly with TION ?(use first and last a steady point. words only as prompt words). Total Prompt l Prompt 2 Pmmm3 Prompt 4 7. READING After reading a single line of Score l-Pt to pictures PROCESS text, ask, “Where does it on all prompts. Score__ say ?” Score 2-Pt to a (repeat line) mixture of pictures & Prompt 1 words Prompt 2 Score 3-Pt to words Prompt 3 on all prompts Prompt 4 Prompt 5 Prompt 6 113 WORD “Count the words on this l-moving finger from page. Point to the words and wd to wd even if count as you go.” numbers used are not accurate. 0- hopping back and forth while counting. LETTER “Count the letters on this 1- Focused effort to page. Point to the letters and count letters even if count as you go.” number correspondence in not accurate. O—counting objects in pict. [Pretest and Post Test Protocol for Rhyme Production] . Say to the child: “When words rhyme, part of the word sounds the same. Words that rhyme sound the same at the end. Listen to the words fun, run and sun. Hear how they sound a little bit alike? There is an ‘un ’ part of the word that sounds the same. Listen again, fun, run, sun. Hear how they rhyme? ” . Say to the child: “I am going to say some words that rhyme, and I want you to give me another word that rhymes with my words. ” “First let ’s practice. ” “Listen to these words — dig, flg, wig. T ell me another word that rhymes with dig, fig, and wig. " If necessary give a couple of examples (big, pig) and pause for the child to add a word. “Tell me another word that rhymes with dark, lark and bark. (Suggest park if needed) . Begin with the list of words using the same prompt, “Tell me another word that rhymes with - Bat, mat, and fat, ...said, Ted, and head ...Dan, tan, and man ...bought, lot, and hot ...tug, mug, and rug ...tree, see, and me ...fog, hog, and ML ...mill, still, and pill, Score 1 point for any real or nonsense word that rhymes. Write all responses in the blank. Put a 0 if the child gives no response. Dispontirrpe if tap child misses three consecutive items after the practice or if the child am confused or frustrated. 114 Initial Sound Isolation Protocol Present each word to the child. Point to the first letter and say, “Here is the letter ___, and here is the word . What sound does __ make in the word ? For example: Here is the letter ‘s’ and here is the word ‘soap’. What sound does ‘5’ make in the word ‘soap’? Pretest prompt words: soap, tiger, run, vase, open, icicle, even, man Post test prompt words: sand, turtle, rain, violet, over, ice cream, eat, milk Stop if the child misses three in a row. Score one for each initial sound isolated. Based on Shur & Gur (1999) initial sound isolation task. Pre, Mid, Post Test Protocol for Intentionality of Print Present a sheet of 81/2” by 11” paper with the following sentence typed: Once upon a time there were three goats (pretest). Ask the following questions. 1. What do you see on this paper? 2. What do you call it? 3. What could it be for? 4. Have you seen something like it anywhere else? Mid and Post Test: Present a sheet of plain 8/1/2” by 11” paper with the following sentences typed on it: Mary wore her red dress. Jack and Jill went up the hill, Roll Over!, Spring is Coming. Reading Processes Can you read it? What does it say? What will you have to do to be able to read it? Message Qualigy of Their Written Ppoductions Present the child a picture (turtle-pre; frog-mid; duck-post) with space above and below the picture. Ask the child to write their name above the picture. Number each letter in the order it was written to determine directionality of writing. 1. What did you write? 2. Does it say something? 3. What does it say? Point to the area below the picture and say, “Now write a word to go with the picture.” After the child has finished ask the following questions. Number each figure in the order written to determine directionality of the writing. 115 1. What did you write? 2. Does it say something? 3. What does it say? Make notes on other things they say while writing, particularly if they make claims about what it “says”, or if they are “drawing or writing” letters or objects. 116 APPENDIX B [ Rubric for Wrifingfi'aluation: Name Writing and Word to Go with the Picture] The following rubric is based on Clay’s (1985) rubric for writing evaluation. Language Level is based the use of letters or letter forms. Draws object Scribbles or letter like forms. Recognizable alphabetic letters used. String of letters without separation for words High level refusal, “I can’t write letters, I don’t know which letters” Any recognizable word 999N553 Score Name Score Word Message Quality is based on evidence the child understands the symbolic quality of print: 0. Draws pictures or borders around the object but does not offer what it says. 1. Gives a message to go with the picture 2. Uses recognizable letters, or letter-like forms 3 Gives a message for the signs(i.e. gives a message but what is written is not that same). High level refusal: “I can’t write those letters, I don’t know the right letters” The message is the same as what is said. 3"?“ Score Name Score Word Directional Quality is based on evidence from observation of the process of writing: 0. No evidence of directional knowledge. Random orientation. 1. Part of the directional pattern is known Either Start top left Or Move left to right Or Return down left 2. Reversal of the directional pattern (right to left). 3. Correct directional pattern Score Name Score Word 117 LE: a. I- -: APPENDIX C List of Children’s Books Used for Finger Point Reading Carle, Eric. (1985). The very busy spider. New York: Philomel. Gerstein, Mordicai. (1984). Roll over! New York: Crown. Martin, Bill. (1967). Brown bear, brown bear, what do you see? New York: Holt. Martin, Bill. (1991). Polar bear, polar bear, what do you hear? New York: Holt. Peek, Merle. ( 1985). Mary wore her red dress. New York: Houghton Miftlin Co. Peek, Merle. (1981). Roll Over! A counting song. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. Taback, Sirnms. (1998). There was an old lady who swallowed a fly. Williams, R. (1998). On the farm. Torrance, CA: Frank Schaffer Publications, Inc. 118 APPENDIX D METALANGUAGE ANALYSIS Phase Day Focus Activity Q- Q-wd Q-con- T-mak T- C- C- C- T- let loca- tent statem statem respon resp bidf in- tion t/let t/ to letter on to or vite nam wd Q word turn child locatio Q to n partici- pate :15 :30 :45 l: 00 l: 15 1: 3O 1: 45 2: 00 2: 15 2: 3O 2: 45 119 Phase Day Focus Activity F P/ w/ me turn APPENDIX E Participation Categories: AM Group FP/ Ob serve child FP/ Alpha No Bk Ob bet bk /adt serve Bk Me 120 Bk Alon e Summary of Participation Categories: Book Reading Group Phase—I“ Day ____1 -5__Focus Activity FP/ FP/ FP/ FP/ Alpha No Bk Bk Fla T alon w/ Ob Ob bet bk /ad Alone nn a e me serve serve Bk el pe turn child Me .5 9.25 9.75 26 .75 6.75 3 1 3.75 11. 15 9. 1 7.75 4 2 25 3.5 2.25 18.75 9. 2.5 2 25 4.75 1.5 2. l 1 l 25 .5 4.5 14.75 9. .75 8 25 .75 23.5 3 9. 5.5 25 .75 4.75 .75 8 1.75 11 121 Phase FP a. lone Day _______ FP/ Participation Categories: PM Group Focus Activity FP/ Dic- No Bk/ Bk Fla Wr w/m Ob tate bk a- A- nn TB serve Active dult lone el e 122 Summary of Participation: PM Group Phase_l Day Focus Activity FP/ F P/ F P/ Dic- Dic- No Bk/ Bk Fla Wr a- w/ Ob- tate tate bk a- A- nn TB lone me serve Ac- Ob- dult lone el tive serve Ta .5 19 4.25 7.75 11 2.7 4.7 6 Sh 3.5 7.5 7.5 10.75 4.5 7 7.7 4.5 Ty .5 1 7.25 13.25 5 Sa .25 8 6 7.5 7.5 7.5 4 6 Jo l 3.75 2.75 14.5 7 7 6 Ba 1 3.25 14 13 3.2 6 Ry 4.75 4.5 2 6 15 8 R0 3 .75 3 6 O Ra .25 5.75 4 .5 123 APPENDIX F PARENT PERMISSION LETTER Dear Parents: As a doctoral student at Michigan State University and a professor at Spring Arbor College, I am doing research on emergent literacy. The goal of my research is to improve teaching and learning by better understanding both the teacher’s and student’s role in children’s growing awareness of print. Throughout the remainder of the school year I will be spending time in Mrs. Easler ‘s classroom observing and interviewing students. Some classroom activities will be videotaped. Mrs. Easler and the Head Start office have approved these research activities. The children will be asked questions about the concepts of print and letter knowledge three times during the study. The activities with the children will be presented in 12 sessions. Your consent for your child’s participation in this research is needed If you choose not to grant permission for your child to participate in this research, I will not make notes of your child’s activity in the classroom, collect work samples, or use videotapes in which your child can be identified. Your child is free to join in the study activities or do other activities in the classroom. In addition to granting permission for your child to participate in this research, permission to use videotapes and audiotapes for other educational purposes is requested. Videotapes filmed in your child’s classroom may provide examples of students’ thinking and learning which can be used to help teachers, preservice teachers, and researchers think about improving early childhood education. Although it is expected that the project will help to further teachers’ understandings about children’s emergent literacy, it can not be guaranteed that it will benefit you or your child. Thank you for assisting me in furthering my understanding of literacy acquisition. If you have any questions or comments, please call Bonita Miller at (517) 523-3511 or 750—6480 or Dr. David Wright (517) 355-2180. Sincerely, Bonita Miller ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A. Consent to Participate in this Research I have read the above statement and I voluntarily consent for my child to participate in this research. I understand that 1 am free to withdraw my consent and to discontinue my participation at any time without any negative effect on my child. 124 Child’s name: Signature: Date: B. Permission to use data for other research and educational purposes In addition to the above consent, 1 ask your permission to use videotapes from your child’s classroom for educational and other research purposes. These uses may include having other researchers or teachers watch videotapes to examine teaching and learning. In no case will the teachers, students or school be identified by name to persons viewing videotapes. If you do not grant this permission, videotapes in which your child can be identified will be viewed only by me and my advising committee. I have read the above statement and grant permission for work samples and videotapes in which my child can be identified to be used for research and other educational purposes described. I understand that I am free to withdraw this consent at any time without penalty. Signature: Date: 125 APPENDIX G Frequency Chart of Responses to “Where does it say—-?” Pattern Book Reading Group (n=8) Pre Mid Post test Test Test _A_g Pict Mix Wd Pict Mix Mix st 3 1 1 1 4 5 l 6 1 5 5 1 1 1 To 1 5 2 l 7 2 6 tal 13% 63% 25% 13% 88% 25% 75% Frequency Chart of Responses to “Where does it say—?” Dictated Chart Writing Group (n=7) Pre Mid ‘ ‘ Post test Test Test Age Pic Mix Wd Pic Mix Wd Pic Mix Wd 3 l 1 1 4 l l l l l l 5 3 1 1 3 l 3 . Total 2/ 3/ 2/ 1/ 2/ 4 2/ 5/ 29% 43% 29% 14% 29% 57% 29% 71% 126 APPENDIX H Frequency Chart for Pattern Book Reading Group Word Location (n=8) Frequency Chart for Dictated Chart Writing Group Word Location (n=7) 127 REFERENCES Altwerger, B., Diehl-Faxson, J ., & Dockstader-Anderson, K. (1985). Read-aloud events as meaning construction. Language Arts, 62 (5), 476-484. Anderson A., & Stokes, S. (1984). Social and institutional influences on the development and practice of literacy. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds), Awakening to literacy (pp. 24-37). Exeter, NH: Heinemann. Bissex, G. (1980). GNYS AT WORK: A child learns to read and write. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp.393-449). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bus, A., & van Ijzendoor, M.(1988). Mother—child interaction, attachment and emergent literacy. Child Development, 59, 1262-1272. Cazden, C. (1983). Adult assistance to language development: Scaffolds, models, and direct instruction. In. R. Parker & F. Davis (Eds), Developing literacy: Young children ’s use of language (pp.3-17). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M. M. (1975). What did I write? Beginning writing behavior. Auckland: Heinemann. Clay, M.M. (1985). The early detection of reading dtfiiculties (3rd Ed. ). Auckland: Heinemann. Clay, M.M. (1998). By diflerent paths to common outcomes. York, Maine: Stenhouse. Cochran-Smith, M. (1984). The making of a reader. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Day, K. (1996). The challenge of style in reading picture books. Children 's Literature Education, 27(3), 153-164. Dickinson, D. K., & Smith, M. (1994). Long term effects of preschool teachers’ book reading on low-income children’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 105-122. 128 Dickinson, UK. (1989). Effects of a shared reading program in one Head Start language and literacy environment. In J. Allen & J. Mason (Eds), Risk makers, risk takers, risk breakers (pp. 125-153). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Dore, J. (1985). Children’s conversations. In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 3) Discourse and dialogue (pp.54-65). New York: Academic. Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York: Teachers College Press. Dyson, A. H. (1984). Reading, writing, and language: Young children solve the written language puzzle. Language Arts, 59, 204-214. E Dyson, A. H. (1987). Individual differences in beginning composing: An orchestral vision of learning to compose. Written Communication, 4, 411-442. Ehri, L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relationship to recoding. In P.B. Gough, L.C. Ehri & R. Treiman (Eds), Reading : acquisition (pp. 107-143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 5— Ehri, L., & Sweet, J. (1991). Finger point-reading of memorized text: What enables beginners to process the print? Reading Research Quarterly, 26(4), 442-461. Ferreiro, E. (1984). The underlying logic of literacy development. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds), Awakening to literacy (pp. 154-173). London: Heinemann. F erreiro, E. (1986). Interplay between information and assimilation in beginning literacy. In W. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds), Emergent literacy: Reading and writing (pp. 15- 49). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. F erreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling. Exeter, NH: Heinemann. Flood, J .S. (1977). Parental styles in reading episodes with young children. Reading Teacher, 30, 864-867. F lorio-Ruane, S. ( 1987). Sociolinguistics for educational researchers. American Educational Research Journal, 24(2),1 85-197. Freppon, P., & McIntyre, E. (1999). A comparison of young children learning to read in different instructional settings. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 206- 216. Goodman, Y. (1983). Beginning reading development: Strategies and principles. In. R. Parker & F. Davis (Eds), Developing literacy: Young children ’s use of language (pp. 69-83). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. 129 Griffin, P. & Cole, M. (1984). Current activity for the future: The zo-ped. In B. Rogoff & J. Wertsch (Eds), Children’s learning in the “zone of proximal development ” (pp.45-63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Hansen, J. (1998). Young writers: The people and purposes that influence their literacy. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning (pp. 205-236). New York: Guilford Press. Heath, S.B., & Thomas, C. (1984). The achievement of preschool literacy for mother and child. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds), Awakening to literacy (pp. 51- 86). London: Heinemarm. Heath, SB. (1982) What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society, I] , 49-76. Hiebert, E. (1981). Developmental patterns and interrelationships of preschool children’s print awareness. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(2), 236-260. Huba, M., & Kontos, S. (1985). Measuring print awareness in young children. Journal of Educational Research, 78 (5), 272-278. lntemational Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association of the Education of Young Children (NAEYC): A Joint Position Statement. (1998). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. Young Children, July, 30-46. Johnston, R., Anderson, M., & Holligan, C. (1996). Knowledge of the alphabet and explicit awareness of phonemes in pre-readers: The nature of the relationship. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 217-234. Karnerelis, G., & Perry, M. (1994). A microgenetic study of cognitive reorganization during the transition to conventional literacy. In D. Laney (Ed), Children 's emergent literacy: From research to practice (93-126). Westport, Conn: Praeger. Kantor, R., Miller, S., & Fernie, D. (1992). Diverse paths to literacy in a preschool classroom: A sociocultural perspective. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(3 ), 185- 202. Lornax, R., & McGee, L. (1987). Toward a model of word reading acquisition: Young children’s concepts about print and reading. Reading Research Quarterly,22(2), 23 7-256. Maclean, M., Bryant, P., & Bradley, L. (1987). Rhymes, nursery rhymes and reading in early childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33(3 ), 255-281. 130 Martinez, M., Cheyney, M., McBroom, C., Hemmeter, A., & Teale, W.H. (1989). No—risk kindergarten literacy environments for at-risk children. In J .B.Allen, & J. Mason (Eds), Risk makers, risk takers, risk breakers: Reducing the risks for young literacy learners (pp.93-127). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Martinez, M., & Teale, W. (1993). Teacher storybook reading style: a comparison of six teachers. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(2), 175-199. Mason, J. (1980). When do children begin to read: An exploration of four year old children’s letter and word reading competencies. Reading Research Quarterly, 15 (2), 203-227. McCormick, S., & Mason, J. (1986). Intervention procedures for increasing preschool children’s interest in and knowledge about reading. In W. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds), Emergent literacy: Reading and writing ( pp.91-115). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. McGill-Franzen, A., & Lanford, C. (1994). Exposing the edge of the preschool curriculum: Teachers’ talk about text and children’s literary understandings. Language Arts, 71, 264-273. Mehan, H. (1985). The structure of classroom discourse. In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 3) Discourse and dialogue (pp.54-65). New York: Academic. Michigan Department of Education (1999). Michigan literacy progress profile MPP). Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education. Miller, B. (1999). Preschoolers’ construction of knowledge about print. Unpublished report. Morris, D. (1983). Concept of word and phoneme awareness in the beginning reader, Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 359-373. Morrow, L. M. (1988). Young children’s responses to one-to-one story readings in school settings. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 89-107. Morrow, L.M. (1990). Preparing the classroom environment to promote literacy during play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 537-554. Munn, P. (1995). What do children know about reading before they go to school? In P. Owen & P. Pumfrey (Eds), Emergent and developing reading: Messages for teachers. Washington, DC: The Palmer Press. Neuman, S. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 286-311. 131 Neuman, S., & McCormick, C.E. (Eds) (1995). Single-subject experimental research: Applications for literacy. Newark, DE: lntemational Reading Association. Neuman, S., & Roskos, K. (1993). Access to print for children of poverty: Differential effects of adult mediation and literacy-enriched play settings on environmental and functional print tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 30 (1 ), 95-122. Ninio, A. (l980).Picture-book reading in mother-infant dyads belonging to two sub- groups in Israel. Child Development, 51, 587-590. Nino, A., & Bruner, J .S. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labeling Journal of Child Language, 6, 5-15. Olson, D. (1984). “See! Jumping!” Some oral language antecedents of literacy. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds), Awakening to literacy (pp. 185-192). London: Heinemann. Olson, D., (1979). From utterance to text. Harvard Education Review, 47, 257-281. Parker, R. (1983). Language development and learning to write: Theory and research findings. Developing literacy: Young children ’s use of language. Newark, DE: lntemational Reading Association. Pellegrini, A. (1991). A critique of the concept of at risk as applied to emergent literacy. Language Arts, 68, 380-385. Pelligrini, A.D., Galda, L., Perlmuter, J ., & Jones, I., (1994). Joint reading between mothers and their Head Start children: Vocabulary development in two text formats. Reading Research Report No. 13: National Reading Research Center. Purcell-Gates, V. (1988). Lexical and syntactic knowledge of written narrative held by well-read-to kindergartners and second graders. Research in the Teaching of English, 22,128-160. Purcell-Gates, V. (1998). Growing successful readers: Homes, communities, and schools. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning (pp.51-72). New York: Guilford Press. Purcell-Gates, V., McIntyre, E., & Freppon, P. (1995). Learning written storybook language in school: A comparison of low-SES children in skills-based and whole language classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 659-685. Reid, r). K., Hresko, w., & Hammill, 13.0939). Test ofearly reading ability (2" Ed). Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed. 132 Resnick, M., Roth, J ., Aaron, R, Scott, J ., Wolking, W., Larse, J ., & Packer, A. (1987). Mothers reading to infants: A new observational tool. The Reading Teacher, 888- 895. Rhodes, L. (Eds). (1993). Literacy assessment: A handbook of instruments. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Rogoff, B. (1982). Integrating context and cognitive development. In M. Lamb, & A. Brown (Eds), Advances in developmental psychology, Vol.2 (pp. 125-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B., & Gauvain, M. (1986). A method for the analysis of patterns, illustrated with data on mother-child instructional interaction. In J. Valsiner (Ed), The Individual Subject and Scientific Psychology (pp.261-2 89). New York: Plenum. Rogoff, B., Mosier, C., Mistry, J ., & Goncu, A. (1993). Toddlers’ guided participation with their caregivers in cultural activity. In E. S. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children 's development (pp. 169-183). New York: Oxford University. Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. (1993). Descriptive observations of adults’ facilitation of literacy in young children’s play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 77-97. Schickedanz, (1981 ). “Hey! This book’s not working right.” Young Children, November, 1 8-27. Scollon, R. (1984). Storytelling, reading, and the micro politics of literacy. In Dialogues in literacy research: T hirty-seventh yearbook- National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Share, D., & Gur, T. (1999). How reading begins: A study of preschoolers’ print identification strategies. Cognition and Insruction, 1 7(2), 177-213. Snow, C.E., & Goldfield, BA. (1983). Turn the page please: Situation —specific language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 10, 551-569. Snow, C.E., & Ninio, A. (1986). The contracts of literacy: What children learn from learning to read books. In W.H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (1 16-138). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Stone, C. A. (1989). Vygotsky’s developmental model and the concept of proleptic instruction: Some implications for theory and research in the field of learning disabilities. Research Communications in Psychology, Psychiatry and Behavior, 10(1, 2), 129-152. 133 Stone, CA. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. S. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children ’5 development (pp. 169-183). New York: Oxford University. Sulzby, E. (1985). Children’s emergent reading of favorite storybooks: A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 45 8-481. Sulzby, E. (1986). Writing and reading: Signs of oral and written language organization in the young child. In W. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (50-89). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Teale, W. (1984). Reading to young children: Its significance for literacy development. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds), Awakening to literacy (pp. 110-121). London: Heinemann. Teale, W. (1986). Home backgrounds and young children’s literacy development. In W.H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 173-206). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Teale, W. & Sulzby, E. (1986). Introduction: Emergent literacy as a perspective for examining how young children becoming writers and readers. In W. H. Teale, & E. Sulzby (Eds), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp.vii-xxv). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Uhry, J. (1999). Invented spelling in kindergarten: The relationship with finger-point reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, I I : 441-464. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Wells, G. (1985). Preschool literacy-related activities and success in school. In D. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds), Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp.229-255). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Wells, G. (1996). Using the tool-kit of discourse in the activity of learning and teaching. Mind, Culture, and Activity: An International Journal, 3(2), 74-101. Whitehurst, G.J., Falco, F.L., Lonigan, C.J., Fischel, J .E., DeBaryshe, B.D., Valdez- Menchaca, M.C., & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 552-558. 134 Whitehurst, G., Epstein, J ., Angell, A., Payne, A., Crone, D., & F ischel, J. (1994). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 542-555. Yaden, D., Smolkin, L., & Conlon, A. (1989). Preschoolers’ questions about print, print conventions, and story text during reading aloud at home. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(2), 1 88-214. 135