Em.»
,. .._
.n -

I
;
v
a

«an

,o t ‘
1.1‘3‘!
’ I;

nrv“"'"
m} ”w”.

 

 

’3 LIBRARIES
)7) I”? MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
. ,. EAST LANSING, MICI-I 48824-1048

wMO‘é‘Z’

(:7

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

KINDERGARTEN TEACHER PRECEPTIONS
REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF YOUNG
CHILDREN'S EMERGING LITERACY SKILLS

presented by

PEGGY ANN THELEN

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph. D. degree in Family and Child Ecology

 

L. / - "7” \ , L 3‘! I (r W"!

 

Major Professor’s Signature

,JoL/r; /0 ‘7!

Date

MSU is an Affinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

.7 ‘444- ‘

o O --

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

 

35f22$33®8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/DateDue.p65-p. 15

 

KINDERGARTEN TEACHER PERCEPTIONS REGARDING THE
DEVELOPMENT OF YOUNG CHILDREN’S EMERGING LITERACY SKILLS

By
Peggy Ann Thelen

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family and Child Ecology

2004

ABSTRACT
KINDERGARTEN TEACHER PERCEPTIONS REGARDING THE
DEVELOPMENT OF YOUNG CHILDREN’S EMERGING LITERACY SKILLS
By

Peggy Ann Thelen

This study examined kindergarten teacher perceptions regarding the
development of young children’s emerging literacy skills. Using data from a
cross-sectional design sample of 42 kindergarten teachers, the investigation
found that many kindergarten teachers did not have a complete understanding
relative to the developmental path of emerging literacy skills. Specifically, there
seemed to be a lack of awareness as to when certain foundational emerging
literacy skills should be developed, and the impact those skills have on the
development of future, more abstract skills. A majority of teachers in this study
indicated emerging literacy skills such as recognize rhyming words, understand
the difference between pictures and print, and understand that letters are formed
in a specific way and are unchanging should be developed alter kindergarten
entry. Whereas, these teachers also indicated that the more abstract skills write
some letters of the alphabet, wn'te first name, and recognize own name in writing
should be developed prior to kindergarten entrance.

Differences in teacher perspectives emerged relating to several personal
characteristics including the number of years of teaching experience, preschool
teaching experience, early childhood training, and teacher participation in

professional activities, as well as contextual characteristics including the type of

program the teacher taught in (Le. half-day or all day program), classroom size,
and children’s prior program experience. Teachers with less teaching
experience, those with a great deal of preschool teaching experience, teachers
with less/no early childhood training, and those who did not participate in
professional activities had higher expectations for the development of certain
emerging literacy skills than their counterparts. Teachers in all day, every day
kindergarten programs, and those with smaller class sizes, expected certain
emerging literacy skills to be developed earlier than teachers in half-day
programs or those with more students. The salutary effects of comparing
expectations of these professionals involved in children’s literacy development

include implications for preservice and inservice training in the field of education.

Copyright by
PEGGY A. THELEN
2004

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is the result of much encouragement and support from many
people. I am most grateful for the faith that my family, friends, and the faculty at
Michigan State University had that this body of research would be accomplished.
Many exceptional people have played a key role in my academic and
professional development, in particular my committee members and several
professors in the Family and Child Ecology Deparb'nent.

My advisor and mentor, Dr. Anne Soderrnan, has played an exceptionally
strong part in my growth. She continually offered opportunities to challenge my
abilities and increase my knowledge in the areas of child development, early
childhood education, and most particularly emerging literacy. Her guidance and
faith in me have been invaluable. Dr. Alice Whiren has been a tremendous
support and a valuable resource of knowledge. I am forever grateful for her
strong encouragement to participate in professional activities, whether I was
ready or not. Dr. Robert Gn’ffore has been a tremendous help in guiding me
through the statistical process and helping me to realize it does not have to be
terrifying. Dr. Nell Duke offered many important suggestions in making this a
stronger research study. Her advice and insight have been indispensable.

Significant support for this study has also come from the Ingham County
Intermediate School Distict. Working closely with Michelle Nicholson and her

staff made the initiation and implementation of this study achievable.

Other professionals have offered much appreciated support. Christie
Freestone and the kindergarten staff at Ithaca South Elementary, and Donnalyn
lngersol and the kindergarten staff at Luce Road Elementary participated in the
pilot study. Linda Chard extended help in keeping the statistical process on track.
Leslie Thomas lent her expertise in language and continuity. Their collaboration
and kindness through these years has been valued beyond words.

Exceptional motivators and supporters include my extended family and
friends. They kept me looking forward and staying focused.

Above all, my children, Caitlin and Kelsey, and my husband, Teny, deserve
the most recognition for their help and encouragement. Their willingness to help
out wherever needed has been a major reason for this accomplishment. I am

truly appreciative of their love and support.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 1
Need for the Study ........................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................ 5
Statement of the Problem ................................................................. 5
Conceptual Framework .................................................................... 7
Ecological Systems Theory .................................................. 7
Process-Person-Context Model ............................................ 9
Conceptual and Operational Definitions ......................................... 12
Research Questions ....................................................................... 14
Assumptions ................................................................................... 14
Summary ........................................................................................ 15
CHAPTER 'IWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ 16
Children’s Emergent Literacy ......................................................... 16
Parents As Teachers ...................................................................... 29
Sociocultural Effects on the Development of
Emerging Literacy .......................................................................... 36
Readiness Education Prior to Kindergarten Entry .......................... 46
Childcare ............................................................................ 51
Preschool ........................................................................... 53
Characteristies of Early Childhood Programs and
Teachers ........................................................................................ 56
Kindergarten Eduation: Yesterday and Today ............................. 61
Summary ........................................................................................ 73
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ............................................................. 76
Research Design ............................................................................ 76
Variables ........................................................................................ 76
Subjects ......................................................................................... 76
Instrumentation ............................................................................... 78
Data Collection ............................................................................... 84
Analyses ......................................................................................... 85
Limitations ...................................................................................... 91
Summary ........................................................................................ 92
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ................................................................. 93
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample .................................. 94

vii

Question One:
Which specific emerging literacy skills do kindergarten
teachers believe they are primarily responsible for teaching? 98

Question Two:
Is there any agreement among kindergarten teachers as
to which emerging literacy skills they believe are best
acquired prior to kindergarten entrance? .................................. 101

Question Three:
Is there any agreement among kindergarten teachers
as to which emerging literacy skills they believe are best
acquired after kindergarten entrance? ...................................... 103

Question Four.
Is there any agreement among kindergarten teachers as
to vrmich emerging literacy skills they believe are best
acquired at the beginning of first grade? ................................. 105

Question Five: Do Perceptions of the acquisition of emerging
literacy skills vary as a function of the demographies of
kindergarten teachers? .............................................................. 106

Question Six: What sources influence kindergarten
teachers’ expectations of children’s literacy readiness? ........... 127

Question Seven: Are kindergarten teachers’ beliefs
congruent with others regarding children’s literacy
capabilities? .............................................................................. 131

Question Eight: Which emerging literacy skills do
kindergarten teachers believe are the five most essential
skills children should develop by kindergarten entry? ............... 134

Question Nine: Are kindergarten teacher expectations
of skills to be developed during the kindergarten year
congruent with the State of Michigan Kindergarten

Framework of Skills? ................................................................ 137
Additional Findings ...................................................................... 139
Summary .................................................................................... 140

viii

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ............................................................ 141

Foundational Skill Recognition .................................................... 142
Phonological Awareness .................................................. 143
Concepts of Print .............................................................. 143
Alphabet ........................................................................... 144

Patterns of Expectations ............................................................. 145
Teaching Background ...................................................... 145
Education Background ..................................................... 146
Classer Characteristies ................................................ 148

Additional Factors Investigated for Teacher

Perspectives ................................................................................ 150
Influences on Teacher’s Expectations .............................. 150
Congruency of Belief Regarding Children’s Literacy
Capabilities ....................................................................... 151
Congruency of Beliefs With Local School District ............. 152
Michigan Curriculum Framework of Expectations ............ 153
Ecological Perspectives .................................................... 153

Implications for Classroom Practice ............................................ 154

Implications for ln-service and Preservice Education .................. 155

Implications for Future Research ................................................. 157

Summary ..................................................................................... 159

APPENDICES ........................................................................................ 161

Appendix A: Michigan Curriculum Framework

Kindergarten Expectations ................................... 163

Appendix B: Emergent Literacy Skills Survey ............................ 169

Appendix C: Letter of Teacher Consent ..................................... 175

Appendix D: Principal Letter ....................................................... 177

Appendix E: University Letter of Consent for Research ............. 179

REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 181

10.

11.

12.

13.

LIST OF TABLES

Approximate Historical Timeframe ................................................ 48
lnstnrment Item Literacy Categories and Item Source .................. 82

Summary of Research Questions, Hypotheses,
and Analyses ................................................................................. 87

Comparison of Demographics ....................................................... 94

Literacy Skills Teachers Believe They Are Responsible
for Teaching ................................................................................. 99

Emerging Literacy Skills Kindergarten Teachers Believe Should
Be Primarily Developed Prior to Kindergarten Entrance ............. 102

Emerging Literacy Skills Teachers Believe Should Be Primarily
Developed After Kindergarten Entrance .................................... 104

Emerging Literacy Skills Teacher Believe Should Be Primarily
Developed During Early First Grade ........................................... 106

Chi-Square Summary of Perceptions of the Acquisition
of Emerging Literacy_Skills as a Function of
Teaching Background ............................................................... 107

Chi-Square Summary of Perceptions of the Acquisition
of Emerging Literacy_Skills as a Function of
Education Background .............................................................. 1 10

ChiSquare Summary of Perceptions of the Acquisition
of Emerging Literacy,Skills as a Function of
Teacher Participation in Professional Activities ......................... 113

Chi—Square Summary of Perceptions of the Acquisition
of Emerging Literacy_Skills as a Function of
Classroom Characteristics ........................................................ 1 16

Influential Sources on Kindergarten Teacher Expectations
of Children’s Literacy Readiness ................................................ 128

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Chi-Square Summary of The Most Influential Sources of
Kindergarten Teachers’ Expectations of Children’s
Literacy Readiness for Kindergarten ......................................... 131

Congruency of Kindergarten Teacher Beliefs of Children’s
Literacy Readiness with Others .................................................. 132

Chi-Square Summary of Kindergarten Teachers’
Expectations and Their Perceived Expectations
of Others .................................................................................... 134

Most Important Emerging Literacy Skills Children Should
Have Upon Kindergarten Entry ................................................... 135

Teacher Agreement With the Michigan Curriculum
Framework: Kindergarten Expectations ................................... 138

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

The Relationship Between Microsystems Within the

Greater Set of Systems: A Conceptual Model ......................... 10
Influences on Teacher Expectations of Emerging

Literacy Skills .......................................................................... 11
Outside-in and Inside-out Systems .......................................... 24
Phases of Emergent Literacy .................................................. 28

xii

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

The word literacy, perhaps more than any other word in education, currently
commands much attention and much emotion. While interest in early childhood
eduwtion as a whole has markedly increased in the last several decades,
literacy development has been most vividly in the spotlight. Whereas early
reading and writing skills are now established characteristies of early literacy,
contemporary literacy education should also include the attainment of listening
skills, speaking skills, and viewing skills (Kostelnik, Sodennan, 8 Whiren, 2004).
As the study and articulation of early literacy matures, it is of growing importance
that early childhood educators understand early literacy acquisition and the
importance it plays in future academic success. The International Reading
Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young
Children (NAEYC), in their joint position statement regarding early literacy
development, state that in order for every child to achieve high standards of
literacy, the responsibility must be shared by families, early childhood programs,
schools, and communities (Neuman, Copple, & Bredekamp, 2000).

Many studies have determined that there is a direct link between the skills
with which children enter school and their later academic performance (Snow,
Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). It is improbable that
children who struggle with reading difficulties early will catch up to their peers.

Those children whose academic careers begin with inadequate reading-related

skills are also more likely to be referred for special education services. Most
notably, it is children from low-income families who appear to be at considerable
risk for reading difficulties (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).

Early childhood is therefore a crucial time to ensure that children receive
developmentally appropriate early literacy experiences. Given that these
important emerging literacy skills need to be taught, the quality of emergent
literacy depends on the environmental quality and experiences children
encounter at home (Hart & Risley, 1995; Purcell-Gates, 1995;Taylor, 1998;
Taylor 8 Dorsey-Gaines, 1988), preschool (Neuman, Copple, & Bredekamp,
2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) and school (Morrow, 1993; Whitehurst 8.
Lonigan, 2001). Consequently, parents, earegivers, and teachers are
responsible for actively supporting children’s emergent literacy development by
providing opportunities for children to acquire important emerging literacy
knowledge and skills (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). It is with the support of
parents, earegivers, and teachers, as well as exposure to literacy-rich
environments, that children effectively advance from emerging to conventional
reading.

It is important to view children’s literacy development within the context of the
family, educational setting, community, and the larger society. Each of these
environments is connected to the others and all influence the developing child
(Bronfenbrenner, 1998). In order to work collectively for successful literacy
development of children, it is beneficial to understand the literacy beliefs of the

adults in charge of children’s emerging literacy.

Need for the Study

Perhaps at no other time in history have Americans better understood the
importance of early childhood literacy. Brain development research has
supported earlier social research in characterizing the links between early
learning experiences and subsequent educational success for children. This
growing mass of research has produced a foundation of knowledge upon which
curricular and best practices decisions can be made (Roskos, Christie, 8
Richgels, 2003). Organizations such as the National Association for the
Education of Young Children (NAEYC), the lntemational Reading Association
(IRA) (see Neuman, Copple, 8 Bredekamp, 2000), and the National Research
Council (1998) have produced research-based guidelines for education
professionals upon which they can base their decisions and practice.

However, it may also be observed that perhaps at no other time in recent
history have Americans demanded children be taught certain literacy skills at
younger and younger ages. A kindergarten teacher of 30 years notes that over
the course of about the last six years, kindergarten teachers have felt the
pressure of escalating academic expectations across the country. This same
concern is heard from colleagues and friends, “Kindergarteners are now
expected to learn what had once been in the domain of a first grade curriculum”
(DeVault, 2003, p. 90). The story is related to one child in Virginia who would not
be promoted to the first grade until she achieved the required reading level. By
emphasizing reading at such an early age, teachers must pack in more and more

teaching into the already limited day. Yet, while expectations and standards

have been heightened, children are coming to school with greater and more
diverse needs (Dickinson, 1999).

With the increase of public pressure to teach children literacy skills at an
earlier age, elementary schools have, accordingly, and as many kindergarten
teachers have noted, pushed down first grade curricular expectations. These
expectations filter down to the youngest Ieamers. The response to these
pressures is constant testing (Dickinson, 1999; Jehlen, 2004; United States
Department of Education, 2002). Consequently, particular education theories are
once again in a flux. Jehlen (2004) observes that the reaction of some schools to
the pressure of raising test scores is to turn away from developmentally based
programs in favor of rote, scripted reading programs. Children spend more time
sitting and listening to a teacher rather than learning through hands-on,
exploration, or experimentation experiences (Dickinson, 1999).

As can be seen, the understanding of literacy acquisition and development
has grown, societal pressure to increase early literacy has grown, and certain
theoretically based programs may now be discarded. Kindergarten teachers are
asked to balance this knowledge and pressure, and turn out children who are
able to read. It is, then, reasonable to say that more demands are being placed
on kindergarten teachers to be successful in teaching early literacy skills.
Therefore, an important question must be addressed: Who do teachers believe
is responsible for which components of children’s emerging literacy? This study
examined those emerging literacy skills kindergarten teachers believed children

should acquire prior to kindergarten entrance, those emerging literacy skills that

should be acquired during kindergarten, and those emerging literacy skills that
should be acquired at the beginning of first grade.

Pu_rp_gs_e of the Study
The pum of this studeas to i_nvest_rg' ate the perceptions of kindergarten

teachers Egardim when your_ig children best aguire emerging literagy skills.

Statement of the Prom
Explicit abilities necessary for reading and writing develop from direct
encounters with both oral and written language over a period of time prior to
elementary education. Neuman, Copple, 8 Bredekamp (2000) suggest viewing
the acquisition of emergent literacy as a developmental continuum rather than as
an all-or-nothing proposition. The continuum extends from birth through the
primary grades.

By looking at literacy development on a continuum, it is logical that children
should learn emerging literacy skills in a smooth and continuous manner.
However, there is great diversity in individual children themselves, in children’s
oral and written language experiences at home, in childcare settings, and in
classrooms; as a result, not all children are at the same spot on the continuum at
the same age. Yet, “reading and writing are lifted out of context in schools and
become the focus of specific, culturally remote pedagogical attention. Literacy
becomes an end in itself, reduced to a hierarchy of interrelated skills” (Taylor,

1998, p.90). If literacy skills are acquired over time, in a somewhat sequential

manner, it could be speculated that there would be agreement as to which
emerging literacy skills are best acquired before children enter kindergarten,
which skills are best acquired in kindergarten, and which skills are best acquired
as children transition to first grade. This study attempted to answer the following
questions: Which emerging literacy skills do kindergarten teachers believe
should be primarily developed prior to kindergarten enhance? Which skills
do they believe they are primarily responsible for teaching to young
children? Which skills do they believe should be primarily developed in
early first grade?

Conceptual Framework
This research was set within the framework of ecological systems theory

(Bronfenbrenner, 1998). A brief explanation of the theory is given followed by a
general description of why the theory supports the purpose of this study.
Ecoflicel Sfitems Theog

Urie Bronfenbrenner (1998) blended together ideas from ecological theory and
field theory to create ecological systems theory. Bronfenbrenner sees individual
human behavior as a consequence of the interaction between the environment
and the person. He contends that the child always develops in the context of
imde relationships and that development is the outcome of the interaction of
the child’s inherent characteristics with the immediate family and eventually with
other elements in the environment.

Children develop within a scheme of relationships affecting and affected by
four levels of systems: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and
macrosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1998). The micmsystem refers to patterns of
activities, roles, and interactions of a child in a particular environment with other
particular individuals. For example, a child’s role in the home is that of
son/daughter, sister/brother, etc. The mesosystem includes associations
beMen two or more microsystems containing the child, such as the relationship
between home and school or the relationship between home and childcare. The
exosystem describes two or more social settings, at least one of which does not
contain the child, but nonetheless influences the child’s immediate setting.

Parents’ workplace and health services are examples of the types of formal

organizations found in exosystems. The macrosystem includes the laws,
customs, cultural values, and resources of the child’s surrounding environment.
The precedence that the macrosystem gives to children’s needs affects the
support they receive at the inner levels of the environment. For example, if a
culture places high expectations and standards for childcare and workplace
benefits for working parents, children will be more likely to have favorable
experiences in their environments.

The environment, according to Bronfenbrenner (1998), is ever changing. Key
life events such as beginning school modify existing relationships between
children and their environments, thus producing new circumstances. However,
changes in the environment are not only imposed on a child, they may also occur
within the child. As children get older, they select, modify, and create many of
their own settings and experiences. This depends on a child’s physical,
intellectual, and personality characteristics, as well as the environmental
opportunities available to the child. In ecological systems theory, children are
both products and producers of their environments in a scheme of mutually
supporting outcomes.

Children’s development influences and is influenced by their own
characteristics and actions, as well as by the characteristics, actions, and
expectations of those closest to them. (Bronfenbrenner, 1998). For example,
children’s literacy development is influenced by the literacy characteristics and
expectations of those persons present and involved in the child’s immediate

environment such as parents, childcare provider, preschool teacher, or

kindergarten teacher. These microsystems are in turn influenced by community,
societal, and cultural factors. A conceptual model of these system interactions is
depicted in Figure 1.

NEON-090194 mod_e1

The process-person-context model allows for the study of differences in
processes and outcomes as a joint function of the characteristics of the
environment and of the person (Bronfenbrenner, 1998). In using this model as a
basis for design, this study investigated teacher beliefs as the result of their
personal characteristics such as age, ethnicity, number of years teaching
kindergarten, and whether they have an early childhood endorsement, among
others. Contextual characteristics that may influence kindergarten teachers”
perceptions include schools in which they teach, how many children receive free
or reduced lunch, and whether the teacher is teaching in a ‘A day session or an
all day session. Outside sources in the mesosystem, exosystem, and
macrosystem such as assessments used by the school district, in-service
training, media sources, professional conferences, and federal legislation may
also influence teacher expectations.

For the purpose of this study, the focus was on the expectations of
kindergarten teachers as a result of the characteristics of the teachers and of the
environment. The model in Figure 2 illustrates the dynamic interaction between
the teacher and the context. It is this model that helped in identifying differences

in teacher expectations associated with different ecological niches.

Trme

  
  

  
  
   
  

““‘d Norms/Public
0“ Society
community

     
 

Private ' u--.

Childcare 8
Preschool

 
        
   
 
    

Public

Public

Head Start
8 MSRP

 

Figure 1. The Relationshi Between
+> Monetary Resources Microsystems Within the reater Set
. of Systems: A Conceptual Model
r:{> Informatron
=> Values
::::::::::::::;> Weak Relationship
::::-J‘> Weak and Conflicted
"' Relationship

 

 

 

 

Past
experience

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Influences on Teacher Expectations of
Emerging Literacy Skills

11

Conceptual and Op_e_rational Definitions
The following are key concepts encountered in this study:

Early Childhood Education

Conceptual definition: Includes group programs providing children from birth to
eight years with social, emotional, intellectual, language, and physical
development and learning (Bredekamp 8 Copple, 1997). Programs in early
childhood education include those benefiting infants and toddlers, preschoolers,
kindergarteners, and also includes primary programs (Kostelnik, Soderman, 8
Whiren, 2004). Programs such as these offer full day or half-day options, they
may be public or private, or specifically targeted at low—, middle, or high-income
families, the focus may be enrichment or remediation. Early childhood education
programs are conducted by many different types of governmental and community
organizations.

Operational definition: For the purpose of this study early childhood education
regarded the emerging literacy period of ages three-years to six-years old.

Emergent Literacy
Conceptual definition: Describes the complete process of fluent literacy

development (Soderman, Gregory, 8 McCarty, 2005). Children’s literacy
acquisition is seen on a developmental continuum beginning at birth, and through
meaningful oral and written experiences, changes and develops over time (Clay,
1966).

Operational definition: For the purposes of this study, only one phase of
emergent literacy was considered and that will was the eariiest phase (i.e. that of
emerging literacy).

Emerging Literacy

Conceptual definition: Describes the eartiest phase or stage of the literacy
development process (Soderman, Gregory, 8 McCarty, 2005). It is during this
phase that the emergence of literacy skills can be seen.

Operational definition: For the purposes of this study, emerging literacy was all
of the skills listed on the Emerging Literacy Skills Survey (see Appendix B).

Phonological Awareness

Conceptual definition: Refers to the hearing and understanding of sounds and
patterns in spoken language (Snow, Burns, 8 Griffin, 1998). Included in
phonological awareness are such concepts as blending, segmentation, deletion,
elision, and rhyming (Adams, 1990).

Operational definition: For the purposes of this study phonological awareness
consisted of skill numbers 21 and 43, listed on the Emerging Literacy Skills

12

Survey (See Appendix B).

Phonemic Awareness
Conceptual definition: Refers to the ability to hear and manipulate distinct
individual sounds in spoken language (Peterson, Taylor, 8 Hansen, n. d.).

Operational definition: For the purposes of this study phonemic awareness
consisted of skill numbers 23, 28, and 49 listed on the Emerging Literacy Skill
Survey (See Appendix B).

Alphabetic Principle

Conceptual definition: Refers to the notion that the letters that make up our
printed language represent the individual sounds of our spoken language
(Adams 1990).

Operational definition: For the purposes of this study alphabetic principle
consisted of skill numbers 25, 26, and 31, listed on the Emerging Literacy Skills
Survey (See Appendix B).

Concepts of Print

Conceptual definition: Refers to the knowledge that print canies meaning and
that the sounds of spoken language can be represented in written form
(Peterson, Taylor, 8 Hansen, n.d.).

Operational definition: For the purposes of this study, concepts of print consisted
of skill numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 30, 33, 36, 37, 38, 41,
44, 45, 46, 48, and 50, on the Emerging Literacy Skills Survey (See Appendix 8).

Oral Language

Conceptual definition: Refers to the acquisition of a receptive vocabulary (the
number of words a child understands) and the acquisition of an expressive
vocabulary (the words a child uses to express himself or herself) (Kostelnik,
Soderman, 8 Whiren, 2004).

Operational definition: For the purposes of this study, oral language consisted of
skill numbers 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 24, 32, 34, 35, 40, 42, and 47 on the
Survey (See Appendix B).

Tacher Perceptions of Emerging Literacy
Conceptual definition: Refers to the idea that teachers’ classroom decisions
stem from their beliefs about Ieaming (Harste 8 Burke, 1980).

Operational definition: In terms of this study, teacher perceptions of emerging
literacy were their responses on the survey.

13

Research Questions

. Which specific emerging literacy skills do kindergarten teachers believe
they are primarily responsible for teaching?

. Is there any agreement among kindergarten teachers as to which
emerging literacy skills they believe should be primarily developed prior to
kindergarten entrance?

. Is there any agreement among kindergarten teachers as to which
emerging literacy skills they believe should be primarily developed after
kindergarten entrance?

. Is there any agreement among kindergarten teachers as to which
emerging literacy skills they believe should be primarily developed at the
beginning of first grade?

. Do perceptions of the acquisition of emerging literacy skills vary as a
function of the demographics of kindergarten teachers?

. What sources influence kindergarten teachers’ expectations of children’s
literacy readiness?

. Are kindergarten teachers’ beliefs congruent with others regarding
children’s literacy capabilities?

. Which emerging literacy skills do kindergarten teachers believe are the
five most essential skills children should acquire by kindergarten entry?

. Are kindergarten teacher expectations of skills to be developed during the

kindergarten year congruent with the State of Michigan Kindergarten
Framework of Skills?

Mm

. Kindergarten teachers functioned in ways that were compatible with their
beliefs.

. Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs were formulated by their training and
experiences.

14

Summag
This chapter included an introduction, need for the study, and purpose for the

study. Also included in this chapter was the conceptual framework for this study
based on the ecological systems theory. Lastly, operational and conceptual
definitions, research questions, and assumpfions were described. A review of

the literature pertinent to this study is presented in Chapter II.

15

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The review of the literature is divided into five main parts. The first part is an
overview of emergent literacy. The second section considers die role of parents
as related to literacy development. The third part explores sociocultural effects
on the development of emerging literacy. This section includes emerging literacy
research based on the characteristics of socioeconomic standing and ethnicity.
The fourth part looks at readiness education prior to kindergarten entry. Finally,
the review examines kindergarten education.

Children’s Emeggpnt Literapy: Traditional Versus Contemmram VIews

In order to have a more comprehensive understanding of literacy development, it
is helpful to look at what literacy research tells us about how young children
become literate. Current views of literacy development are dynamic and
noteworthy. Much of this research may shape teacher expectations and may
also be considered the foundation for current best practices for many teachers.

Contemporary study of children’s literacy acquisition is built on the work of
John Dewey (1899; 1902), who saw children’s Ieaming at school in contrast to
children’s Ieaming at home. More recently, research by Marie Clay (1966) has
supplied the springboard for studying and considering early literacy. Through her
work with young children, Clay proposed that children demonstrate emergent
literacy behaviors when they read or write in the non-conventional sense. She
also emphasized the significant relationship between reading and writing in early
literacy development. Up until that time, it was thought that children’s reading

16

must occur before they learned to write. Teale and Sulzby (1986) view the
acquisition of literacy as a life-long, continuous process that begins early in life; a
complex action with linguistic, social, and psychological characteristics; and as a
part of a child’s natural surroundings, acquired both at home and at school.

This emergent literacy approach is in contrast to the more traditional
readiness approach that views literacy as an all-or-nothing occurrence that starts
when children begin school (Lonigan 8 Whitehurst, 1998). The readiness
perspective dichotomizes children’s prereading behavior and what is thought to
be real reading that children learn in educational settings; whereas, the emergent
literacy point of view sees literacy-related actions occurring before and during the
preschool years as critical features of literacy development Another
differentiation between more traditional approaches to literacy development and
an emergent literacy viewpoint is the theory that from birth, there is a parallel and
mutually dependent development of reading, writing, and oral language.
Children’s exposure to literacy characteristics and events within their immediate
environments provides developmental support in the absence of formal
instruction. The focus of more traditional approaches is on formal instruction of a
number of discrete, separate literacy skills that children must achieve in order to
learn to read and write (Morrow, 1993; Nielsen 8 Monson, 1996). The traditional
approaches often treat writing as secondary to reading.

Emergent literacy is a phrase that describes the process of becoming literate
(T eale 8 Sulzby, 1989). This perspective acknowledges that children play an
active role in the development of their own understanding of the world through

17

exploration. From both, children progressively become literate through
observation and interaction in their environments. Important elements of
emergent literacy include the development of reading, writing, speaking,
listening, and viewing (Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren, 2004). Children progress
through three general stages of literacy development: emerging, earty, and fluent
(Soderman, Gregory, 8 McCarty, 2005). Emerging literacy includes ages
approximately birth to five; early literacy includes ages approximately six to eight;
and the fluency phase includes ages approximately eight and up. Children will
vary in moving in and out of these phases, depending on experience, gender,
and other developmental factors.

A range of perspectives characterizes the examination of emergent literacy.
For example, many studies investigating young children’s literacy related
behaviors have revealed that very young children know a lot about print before
they enter formal schooling (Clay, 1966, 1991; Durkin, 1966; Harste, Woodward,
8 Burke, 1984; Heath, 1983; Neuman 8 Roskos, 1997; Purcell-Gates, 1996;
Read, 1971; Teale 8 Sulzby, 1986; Yaden, Rowe, 8 MacGillivray, 2000). The
ground-breaking work of both Clay (1966) and Read (1971) inspired many
researchers interested in the field of early childhood education to study print
awareness, as well as the reading and writing of young children.

Emergent literacy study has also focused on the effect of literacy-rich
environments on children’s literacy acquisition (Adams, 1990; Baker,
Sonnenschein, Serpell, Scher, et al, 1996; Clay, 1976; Dickinson, 8 DiGisi, 1998;
Evans, Shaw, 8 Bell, 2000; Heath, 1982, 1983; Morrow, 1989; Sonnenschein,

18

Brody, 8 Munstennan, 1996; Strickland 8 Morrow, 1989; Taylor, 1998; Taylor,
Blum, 8 Logsdon, 1986; Taylor 8 Dorsey-Gaines, 1988; Teale 8 Sulzby, 1986).
Literacy-rich environments both at home and at school are key in supporting
literacy and preventing reading difficulties. When discussed in the literature, the
terms print-rich environment, rich literacy environment, literacy enriched settings,
and print environment usually refer to both the presence of literacy materials and
children’s engagement

In literacy-rich homes, parents and caregivers provide children with
opportunities for daily reading, extended discourse (talking or writing), language
play, experimentation with literacy materials, book talk, and dramatic play (Burns,
Griffin, 8 Snow, 1999; Neuman, Copple, 8 Bredekamp, 1998). Children who are
read to learn to listen to and enjoy stories, as well as coming to learn concepts of
literacy (Snow, Burns, 8 Griffin, 1998).

Literacy-rich classrooms include those in which teachers incorporate the
characteristics of literacy-rich home environments, as well as developmentally
appropriate practices and experiences, literacy routines, and classroom designs
that encourage reading and writing (McGee 8 Richgels, 1996). Literacy-rich
classrooms also offer a diverse genre of books, including informational texts
(Duke 8 Bennett-Armistead, 2003).

Adams (1990), in a review of research on prereaders and how they develop
into readers, summarized that children ready to read come to school with large
amounts of exposure to print which has parenthetically (or by parent support)
taught them about the form and function of language. Most especially, these

19

children have learned phonemic and alphabetic skills, which are the best
predictors of later reading success. Yet, Adams also says that children, whose
early literacy environments were not as supportive, may still learn to read in
classrooms that emphasize direct instruction and explicit teaching of the
alphabetic code in a print-rich setting.

Taylor, Blum, and Logsdon (1986) agree that children learn best in a
language-rich and print-rich environment. They also agree that children from
homes that do not offer exposure to literacy events and activities can still develop
critical emergent literacy skills it a literacy enriched environment is provided in
the classroom.

Interestingly, Dowhower and Beagle (1998), in a review of literature
concerning the presence or absence of print in facilitating literacy development,
found the research base weak. They note that while education professionals
stress the importance of a print-rich classroom environment, there is conversely
little research on what specific characteristics make up a print-rich environment in
terms of literacy materials and how common these materials are in preschool and
elementary classrooms across the country. However, Morrow’s (see Dowhower
8 Beagle, 1998) research is noted as unique in its study of the advantages of
creating special places for engaging in literacy activities. With the creation of an
inviting atmosphere with well-designed literacy centers, Morrow found a
significant increase in an interest in books, an increase in the number of children
who voluntarily engaged in literacy activities, and an increase in children’s

understanding and creations of original stories.

Another course of investigation into emergent literacy includes those studies
that focus on the acquisition of the components of literacy. For example, there is
growing validation of a developmental order to children’s print awareness (see
Christie, Enz, 8 Vukelich, 1997, p.58):

1. General concepts about the pum and functions of print. Children
recognize, and model in their pretend play, home uses of print, often
beginning in the preschool years (Hiebert, 1981). Many studies report
incidences of preschoolers making a shopping list, taking food orders, and
writing notes and letters. Through similar pretend play and book-reading
activities, children, often by the age of thme, also learn to distinguish print
from pictures and discover that print has meaning.

2. Graphic awareness (visually mnizipg environmental print, letters, and
m Many 3- and 4—year olds are able to recognize pictures in a favorite
storybook, logos, or labels in their environment such as McDonalds or
KMart signs, Pepsi, and Cheerios (Goodman, 1986). However, children
initially recognize print in full context It is not until the age of five or six
that children have the aptitude to recognize isolated words (Lomax 8
McGee, 1987). Individual letter recognition may also develop around the
same time as environmental print. Some 3—year-olds may recognize one
third of the alphabet (Hiebert, 1981) while others will not learn any letters

until after kindergarten entrance (Morgan, 1987).

3. Phonemic awareness-the congpt that words consists of a fluence of
Men sounds. In acquiring an alphabetic language like English, children

21

must learn that the component sounds of the language are represented by
printed symbols (letters or graphemes). In order to grasp the alphabetic
principle, children must develop an awareness that language is made up of
individual words, and subsequently, each word is made up of syllables and
phonemes within each syllable (Snow, Burns, 8 Griffin, 1998). Children
develop these skills through language games, most notably rhyming
(Soderman, Gregory, 8 McCarty, 2005). Rhyming skills not only help
children with spelling; studies indicate that rhyming ability in preschool is a
strong predictor of later reading achievement.

4. Letter-sound relationships. Children as young as three (Harste et al.,
1984) have shown skill in letter-sound relationships; however, the
development of this skill is not seen in many children until the age of five or
six. An indicator of letter-sound knowledge development is the use of
invented or temporary spelling in children’s writing. While Neuman,
Copple, 8 Bredekamp (2000) say that invented spelling will often appear
prior to the beginning of kindergarten, Sulzby 8 Teale (1991) note that
invented spelling most often does not start until late kindergarten for some
children and not until the end of first grade for other children.

Whitehurst and Lonigan (1998) have suggested that there are two
interdependent sets of skills and processes that make up emergent and
conventional literacy. These information systems are called outside-in and
inside-out. As Figure 3 illustrates, the outside-in skills characterize what

sources outside the printed word that help children understand the meaning of

print. Included are vocabulary, phonological-processing skill, conceptual
knowledge, story schemas, and semantic sense within contexts. Knowledge
of the rules for translating the specific writing they are trying to read into
meaningful sounds make up the inside-out elements. These include
components within the print that aid the reader in translating print into
meaningful sounds. Inside-out features include phonemic awareness, letter
knowledge, and links between letters and sounds, decoding strategies,
punctuation and sentence grammar, and memory to organize elements into
correct sequences. Other emerging literacy skills, including the conventions of
print (e.g. directionality, one-to-one correspondence between spoken and
written words), the functions of print (e.g. print tells a story or gives
information), an understanding of environmental print (e.g. recognizing signs
and logos such as McDonalds or KMart), and emerging reading and emerging
writing (e.g. pretending to read and write) have been noted in recent research.
However, Whitehurst and Lonigan (1998) suggest that “although these
abilities and behaviors are sometimes associated with later reading when
considered in isolation, research either has not generally supported a direct
causal link between them and later decoding skills or has found that these
behaviors appear to be better conceptualized as proxy measure for letter
knowledge, phonological sensitivity, and oral language, and reflect more

exposure to print and other literacy-related activities, or both" (p.5).

23

 

rContextual UnitsN

(e.g., Narrative)

 

 

 

\ J

i

F \

Semantic Units . _.
(e.g., Concepts) Outsrde In

L J

I

F \

Language Units _
(e.g., Words) Reading

\ J

I

F N

(e fmfl'fp‘) Inside-out

L J

I

F \

Print Units

(e.g.,
Graphemes)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J

Figure 3. Outside-in and Inside—Out Systems. Emergent and
conventional literacy result from children’s ability to employ
information from two interdependent information systems:
outside-in and inside-out (Whitehurst 8 Lonigan, 1998).

24

As a result of their study of the aforementioned information systems
Whitehurst and Lonigan (2001) established three broad categories that appear to
have the strongest link to conventional literacy. These categories include one
outside-in element (oral language) and two inside-out elements (phonological
processing and print awareness). Oral language, while having its greatest
impact on children’s later ability to read for meaning, almost certainly has some
bearing on the development of decoding abilities, as well. An extensive body of
research has established positive correlations and longitudinal constancy
between individual differences in vocabulary and other oral language skills and
later differences in reading (see Lonigan8 Whitehurst, 1998). Peterson et al.
(n.d.) also agree that young children’s skill in oral language will significantly
influence their comprehension of the forms and functions of print, their
development of a strong reading vocabulary, and their understanding of written
material. Hart and Risley (1995) found overwhelming evidence that suggests
that children who learn vocabulary more slowty had predictably slower cognitive
growth rates, as well. The Hart and Risley study, along with the National
Reading Council (Snow, Burns, 8 Griffin, 1998) emphasize that increasing
children’s oral language skills could prevent the greater part of reading problems.

One aspect of oral language that must be especially emphasized is that of
phonological awareness. An abundance of studies on this subject finds that
there is a firm link between phonological awareness and reading achievement
(Bradley 8 Bryant, 1983; Stanovich, Cunningham, 8 Cramer, 1984; Stahl 8

Murray, 1994; Winsor 8 Pearson, 1992). Phonological awareness is W as

25

the perception of sounds, syllables, and words in language and the ability to
understand them in spoken language (Neuman, Copple, 8 Bredekamp, 2000).
This includes the awareness of phonemes, onsets, rimes, and syllables (Stahl 8
McKenna, 2000). While the connection between reading achievement and
phonological awareness has been established, there is less clarity as to the
specific role phonological awareness plays in a child Ieaming to read (Stahl 8
McKenna, 2000). It should be noted that the majority of these studies have been
done on phonological awareness and reading. Yet, phonological awareness is
also related to spelling. Invented spelling activities, or writing the sounds heard
in a word, are shown to be very influential in developing children’s phonological
awareness and support the connection between letters and sounds (Adams,
1990).

Phonological processing, which refers to activities that call for the use of, the
manipulation of, or the sensitivity to the sounds in words, has also been found to
play a crucial part of the normal acquisition of reading (Adams, 1990; Wagner 8
Torgesen, 1987). Three interrelated groups of phonological processing skills
have been recognized by prior research: phonological sensitivity, phonological
naming, and phonological memory (Wagner 8 Torgesen, 1987). Lonigan 8
Whitehurst (1998) note that weak phonological processing skills are a telltale
characteristic of poor readers. Examples of important phonological processing
skills in the emerging phase include the ability to detect rhyme and supply
rhyming words, the ability to immediately recall verbally presented material, and

the ability to accomplish serial-naming tasks. Other research has noted that

26

 

there is a strong link between these three phonological processes and future
decoding ability, and that without sufficient intervention, differences in children's
abilities are very consistent from late preschool age onward (see Whitehurst 8
Lonigan, 2001).

A considerable share of emergent literacy research has been in the
verification (of young children’s print knowledge in the preschool years (see
Purcell-Gates, 2000). These foundational skills are also critical to children’s
literacy development. For example, alphabet knowledge upon school entry is
one of the strongest single predictors of short— and long-tenn literacy success
(Adams, 1990; Stevenson 8 Newman, 1986). Children must have an
understanding of the alphabetic principle, the understanding that there is a
systematic relationship between letters and sounds (Byme, 1998). A beginning
reader who is unable to recognize and distinguish the individual letters of the
alphabet will have trouble Ieaming the sounds those letters represent (Chall,
1967). Letter knowledge is not only important in decoding text; it also has a
significant responsibility in the development of phonological sensitivity.
Children’s abilities to hear and manipulate phonemes are also associated with
higher levels of letter knowledge (Stahl 8 McKenna, 2000; Wagner et al., 1994).

The acquisition of children’s literacy is also dependent upon the quality and
occurrence of immediate experiences with oral and written language in the early
years of life. Children must not only receive these experiences at home, they
must also be offered in early education settings. Examples of emergent literacy

skills on the continuum of children’s literacy acquisition are illustrated in Figure 4.

27

 

 

-participate in reading
and writing activities

-use pictures, known and
familiar letters to
represent written

language

-understand concepts of
print such as left-to-right
and top-to-bottom
orientation, punctuation

-retell simple or familiar
stories

 

 

-identify an increasing
number of words by sight

-participate in reading
and writing activities for
their own enjoyment

-knows letter names and
sounds for nearly all
letters

 

Emerging Early Fluent
Phase Phase pm“
(3'5) (6-8) (8 and up)
Children: Children: Children:
-begin to play with -continue to play with -read with greater
language and participate language. Can rhyme, fluency
in rhyming games segment words, and
blend words -use comprehension
-enjoy listening to and strategies more
want to read storybooks -enjoy books efficiently
—identify some letters and -orally read with some -read daily and use
make some letter-sound fluency reading to research
associations topic
-use letter-sound
-recognize signs and associations, word parts, -use word
words in their and context to identify identification
environment new words strategies to decode
and figure out words

-punctuate simple
sentences correctly
and proofread their
own writing

-use common letter
patterns and critical
features to spell words

 

Figure 4. Phases of Emergent Literacy. Emergent literacy is seen on a

continuum of development. Young children build a foundation of skills upon
which more complicated and comprehensive skills are added until reading and

writing skills reach a fluent phase. Adapted from Neuman, Copple, 8

Bredekamp, 2000.

28

 

Children move from fire emerging phase, filled with exploration of their
environment and foundation building, and through the early phase, which is
highlighted with the development of the basic concepts of print and
experimentation with reading and writing. Most reach the fluent phase, which is
underscored with a greater ability to read and write for meaning and pleasure
(Neuman, Copple, 8 Bredekamp, 2000).

Parents as Teachers

Teachers may expect children to bring certain, already developed emerging
literacy skills directly to the classroom from home. It is therefore important to
examine research that looks at home literacy environments conducive to literacy
development. As can be seen, this research explains the positive effects a rich
home literacy environment may have on children’s developing literacy. In
contrast, however, this research also shows that children from homes not
favorable to literacy development may not bring certain expected emerging
literacy skills to school. Children whose literacy skill development differs from
teacher expectation may also come from homes where parents have a different
view of their role in their children’s literacy development.

Emergent literacy research (Clay 1966; Read, 1971; Strickland 8 Morrow,
1989; Teale 8 Sulzby, 1986) has changed many educator perspectives on young
children’s literacy development and the role that parents play in their
development (Edwards, 1991; Heath, 1983; Purcell-Gates, 1995; Taylor 8
Dorsey-Gaines, 1988). Parents, considered to be children's first teachers, are

now thought to have the potential to make crucial contributions to children’s

developing literacy (Bus, van lJzendoom, 8 Pellegrini, 1995; Hart 8 Risley, 1999;
Scarborough 8 Dobrich, 1994; Teale, 1995). As a result, there is much
emphasis focused on the home literacy environment.

Research has shown there are significant correlations between preschool
children’s language skills, specifically vocabulary development, and the home
literacy environment (see Whitehurst 8 Lonigan, 1998). While a link between the
home literacy environment and the acquisition of other emergent literacy abilities
has also been identified (Purcell-Gates, 1996; Teale, 1986), there has been less
study of these components.

One of the major focal points of home literacy study is shared book reading.
A strong body of research has shown that children’s literacy efforts are best
supported by adults’ interactions with children through shared book reading (also
referred to as reading aloud and storybook reading). Early research by Durkin
(1966) noted that children who learned to read before scth entry were read to
by parents, siblings, or other caregivers. It was noted that neither socioeconomic
level, ethnicity, race, nor IQ differentiated readers from nonreaders. The
distinguishing factors were being read to, access to print, parents valuing
education, and early writing. While the strength of the relationship has been
recently questioned (Scarborough 8 Dobrich, 1994), most researchers and
practitioners still agree that shared book reading is an important aspect of
children’s literacy and language development (Bus, van lJzendoom, 8 Pellegrini,
1995; Paratore, Melzi, 8 Krol—Sinclair, 2003).

The following summary offers a list of the many positive findings of
contemporary study as regards reading aloud to young children (Galda 8
Cullinan, 1991; Teale, 1981). The encouraging link between shared reading and
literacy development illustrates that reading aloud to children promotes (1)
language development in emergent readers (Burns, Griffin, 8 Snow 1999;
Chomsky, 1972; Irwin, 1960; Mackinnon, 1959); (2) vocabulary development
(Durkin, 1978; Ninio, 1980; Ninio 8 Bruner, 1978; Senechal 8 Cornell, 1993;
Senechal, LeFevre, Hudson, 8 Lawson, 1996); (3) children’s motivation to read
(Mason 8 Blanton, 1971); (4) Ieaming to read before school entry (Durkin, 1966;
Teale, 1978; (5) eariy school reading success (Moon 8 Wells, 1979; Walker 8
Kuerrbitz, 1979; Durkin, 1978); (6) a familiarity with the conventions of print
(Clay, 1979; Taylor, 1983); and (7) a metalinguistic awareness of print
(Schickedanz, 1986).

Bus, van lJzendoom, and Pellegrini (1995) looked at 29 studies of parent-
child joint storybook reading and concluded that there are significant effects on
children’s literacy and language development. It has been reported that reading
aloud to children aids development in oral language, cognitive skills, concepts of
print, and phonemic awareness, all of which are important precursors to formal
reading instruction (Allington 8 Cunningham, 1996; Hall 8 Moats, 1999;
Holdaway, 1979). Children also become familiar with the reading process by
watching how others read, and they develop an understanding of story structure.
Shared book reading allows children to build a large vocabulary on a wide range
of topics, which will later aid in reading comprehension and the development of

31

reading strategies. By hearing a story many times, children’s understandings are
reinforced and extended. '

There does not seem to be a direct relationship between shared reading and
growth in phonological skills according to recent studies (see Whitehurst 8
Lonigan, 1998). However, it has been discovered that growth in preschool
phonological sensitivity is related to parental involvement in home literacy
activities such as lap reading and vocabulary development (Lonigan, Dyer, 8
Anthony, 1996). Recently, Senechal et al. (1998) affirmed that kindergarten and
first-grade children’s knowledge of written language (i.e., print concepts, letter
knowbdge, invented Spelling, and work identification) is linked with parental
efforts to teach their children about print, but is not associated with contact to
storybooks. They also discovered that children’s oral language abilities are
linked with shared reading but are not associated with parent’s efforts to teach
about print. Whitehurst 8 Lonigan (2001) point out data that suggest that
exposing children to alphabet books may increase letter knowledge and
phonological processing. They also identify a dichotomy of studies, some of
which have found an association between experiences with word games in the
home and the development of phonological processing and some of which do
not.

Quality parent-child conversation, or extended discourse, has a direct
influence on literacy development and also allows for children to be exposed to
fisher, more complex vocabulary (Hart 8 Risley, 1995), upon which later reading

and vocabulary scores can be predicted (Share et al., 1983). Effective extended

32

discourse compels the participants to be fairly explicit, meaning focused, and
able to extend conversation outside of the present (Dickinson 8 Tabors, 1991;
Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, 8 Hemphill, 1991). These types of
extended discourses can be seen during shared book reading when book topics
are extended by discussion, during mealtime conversations with others, and
during fantasy toy play (Beals 8 DeTemple, 1993). Other characteristica of the
home literacy environment such as number of books in the home, library visits,
and parent’s literacy background are found to be related to children’s vocabulary
skills (Senechal et al., 1996).

There have been many types of studies executed in order to look at parent
perceptions of children’s developing literacy. Yaden (Yaden, Rowe, 8
MacGillivray, 2000) and his colleagues reviewed recent research on parents’
perceptions noting that most studies were process oriented using interviews
(Fitzgerald, Spiegel, 8 Cunningham, 1991), observation (Goldenberg, Reece, 8
Gallimore, 1992), focus groups (Neuman, Hagedom, Celano, 8 Daly, 1995), and
questionnaires (Hiebert 8 Adams, 1987; Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, 8
Hemphill, 1991) as methods for gathering data. Gadsden (1998) noted that only
a small number of literacy studies concentrate on parents’ perceptions of
children’s literacy knowledge or understanding of their earIy literacy, as
compared to analyses on parents” influences on emergent literacy. Examples of
parents’ perceptions of literacy use can be gleaned from the Baltimore Early
Childhood Project (Baker, Sonnenschein, Serpell, Scher, et al., 1996;
Sonnenschein, Brody, 8 Munstennan, 1996). Three themes emerged from the

findings: (1) Literacy is a source of entertainment, (2) literacy is a set of skills to
be purposely developed, and (3) literacy is an essential characteristic of daily life.
It is also noted in this study that parents differed in their beliefs of the most
effective way of supporting early literacy. While some parents created
pleasurable reading opportunities for their young children, others fliought that
focusing on skills training was best Parents in Ronald Taylor’s (1995) study of
Icelandic families discovered that entertainment was the most reported and
observed purpose of reading for both urban and non-urban families. Teale’s
(1986) investigation of children from African American, Mexican American, and
White families discovered that literacy served many purposes including
entertainment, religious, interpersonal, daily living, and school-related tasks. An
ethnographic study by Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines (1988) revealed that the five
low-income families whose children were successful in school used literacy to
gain information in meeting everyday needs, to deal with public agencies, to
schedule daily functions, and to learn about activities and events. Reading was
also used for educational and recreational purposes. Purcell-Gates (1996)
discovered in her study of twenty low-income, diverse families that they, too,
used print for many different reasons in their daily lives. She notes, however,
that there was a great disparity in the type and frequency of literacy events
across homes. Print was not predictably a part of all of the families' lives.
Children from homes where more instances of persons reading and writing were

included showed more conventional concepts of writing in school.

Neuman et al. (1995) discovered a variety of views on literacy Ieaming within
a group of African American adolescent parents. As a result of their research of
Hispanic mothers of Spanish speaking kindergarteners, Goldenberg, Reese, and
Gallimore (1992) found that some mothers believed Ieaming to read started with
Ieaming letters and sounds. In contrast, Yaden et al. (2000) observed that a
majority of studies concerning parents’ perceptions of literacy acquisition have
described findings by cultural groups without further differentiation with regard to
individual ability or other factors.

Whitehurst 8 Lonigan (1998) claim that there are few quantitative studies that
focus on home literacy environments and emergent literacy skills other than
children’s oral language. However, they note that studies by Wells (1985) and
Crain-Thoreson and Dale (1992) discovered that the frequency of shared reading
was linked to concepts of print measures. They also note that Purcell-Gate’s
(1996) research found “that families in which there were more higher-level
literacy events occurring in the home (i.e., reading and writing texts at the level of
connected discourse) had children with a higher level of knowledge about the
uses and functions of the written language register, and more conventional
concepts about print” (p.856). Children’s reading and writing at home, as well as
shared book reading, were found by Mason (1992) to be linked with children’s
capacities to label environmental print.

As a result of these studies, the powerful role that parents play in the
development of children’s emergent literacy can be seen, not only through their

interactions with their children but also in creating amenable home conditions for

literacy achievement, and through their beliefs regarding the uses and acquisition
of literacy. While there has been much attention given to the important role the
home, as well as school settings, play in terms of shared reading, reading
instruction, and availability of reading materials, there has been much less
concentration on seeking information about whether home or school experiences
are more vital to literacy development, how literacy beliefs at home and school
vary, or how young children cany information from one setting to another. It is
important to sort out children’s literacy learning needs at home and at school,
and equally important to understand which of these needs teachers believe they
are responsible for supporting. By creating a link between home and school
beliefs, young children’s literacy needs may be met in a continuous, and more
developmentally, socially, and culturally appropriate manner.
Sociocultural Effects on the Deflpmnt of Emergipg Literapy

A peek into most kindergarten classrooms in America will show children from
homes of many different cultures and differing socio-economic status (SES).
Yet, there is an expectation that these children should have many of the same
emerging literacy skills when they enter school. Contemporary literacy research
notes that children may enter schools with differing emerging literacy skills as a
result of the differences in home literacy practices as related to cultural and/or
economic influences in the home.

Guided by the principals of the Vygotskian perspective, the sociocultural
perspective on literacy acquisition recognizes that literacy is culturally and
socially entrenched (Xu, 2003). Literacy Ieaming is contextual because children

learn literacy through activities and events within their unique environment
(Goodman, 1985; Heath, 1983; Luke 8 Kale, 1997; Purcell—Gates, 1995; Teale 8
Sulzby, 1986). Xu (2003) explains that children acquire knowledge about
language and literacy, by observing how literate people use language and
literacy, through everyday interactions with print, including environmental print,
and by means of regular literacy practices, such as shared book reading.
Literacy systems may vastly differ from one community to another. For
example, Heath (1983) reported how children in Roadville, a European American
working—class community, children in Trackton, an African American working-
class community, and the children of Townspeople, a middle—class, African
American and European American community, differed in literacy practices. The
Townspeople trained their children to be conversationalists by asking questions
requiring specific information. Children were taught to act like readers and
writers using an assortment of literacy materials. The homes in Roadville were
full of reading material such as newspapers, magazines, church-related material,
and children’s books. Parents read bedtime stories to children and extended
discourse by asking them questions. Kindergarten-aged children were
encouraged to do worksheets and to listen to stories. Children also learned to
passively listen and respond to questions in Sunday school. The Trackton
children learned literacy as a process of social negotiation with group members.
Literacy activities were the responsibility of the whole group, not just one
member. Literacy events were full of conversation and information sharing

among community members. In short, Heath found children in each town had

37

acquired the literacy skills necessary for involvement in that particular
community. However, the acquired skills were not necessarily harmonious with
schools.

Mismatches between children’s home and school literacy experiences are
often the result of differences in literacy practices in different communities.
Contemporary research focusing on African American (Heath, 1983), Asian
American (Schmidt, 1998; Xu, 1999), Hawaiian (Au 8 Manson 1981), Hispanic
(Delgado-Gaitan 8 Trueba, 1997; Volk, 1997), and Native American (Philips,
1983) children suggests that home literacy traditions are often dissimilar to those
of the classroom and often go unsupported within the classroom environment.
For example, Michaels (1981) noted that first-grade African American girIs’
narratives were more apt to be focused on subjects imbedded by a theme or
event. In contrast, European American girts’ narratives were more topic centered
or focused on one subject or event. Since the teacher did not understand or
value the nanative style of the African American girls, nor did the girls
understand the teacher’s discussion approach, the end result was a mismatch of
communication styles and fewer chances for the student to practice literate-style
discourse.

Au (1981; 1993) noticed differences in discourse style between the home and
school environments of Hawaiian children. The Hawaiian children jointly
executed personal narratives filled with humor and joking, which was quite the

reverse of traditional classroom discourse that highlighted individual discourse.

The Paratore, Melzi, and Krol-Sinclair (1999) study observed that when
parents and teachers shared linguistic and social backgrounds, parents visited
with teachers more frequently, asked questions, and sought clarification. Parents
whose backgrounds differed from teachers were found to attend formal school
meetings and check homework, but rarely initiated contact with the school. It
was also noted that when Spanish-speaking parents attended meetings with
English-speaking parents, personal contact was again reduced.

An ethnographic study by Valdes (1996) of ten immigrant families from
Mexico discovered that parents and teachers made assumptions about one
another that were factors in the home-school barrier. For instance, the Mexican
mothers felt that they were responsible for the moral rearing of their children
while it was the teacher’s job to impart school-type knowledge to the children.
Teachers assumed that the mothers had only modest interest in the children’s
education because the children went to school lacking certain skills such as
knowing the alphabet, colors, or numbers. Another point of difference was when
the American teachers expected the Mexican mothers to help the children with
homework. The mothers would help their children, however they were more
likely to focus on aspects of the homework that were different than the teachers.

Literacy is a complex, yet essential set of skills for all children living in the
United States to acquire in order to achieve success. However, the process is
even more difficult for children whose oral and written language at home differs
from that of the school. While Spanish speakers are the largest single language
minority in the United States (U. S. Census Bureau, 2001), data propose that

39

children whose first language is Spanish are at risk for less than proficient
literacy achievement in U. S. schools (Goldenberg 8 Gallimore, 1995; Snow,
Burns, 8 Griffin, 1998). For instance, Spanish-speaking children are two times
more likely than non-Hispanic Whites to read below age level in English, and are
more likely to drop out of high school than Blacks and non-Hispanic Whites
(Federal lnteragency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2002).

While a broad base of literature concerning children’s home literacy
encounters exists, it is intriguing that most research seems to have dichotomized
literacy study by either looking at White upper- to middle-socioeconomic status
(SES) families or low SES families (Gadsden, 1998; Sulzby 8 Edwards, 1993).
Children from lower economic backgrounds are apt to be viewed as a
homogeneous group (Hammer, Miccio, 8 Wagstaff, 2003). It is noted, however,
that besides cultural differences, economic differences exist in the functions of
literacy, (Heath, 1983; Purcell-Gates 1995; Teale, 1986), the quality of literacy
interactions (Heath, 1983; Philips, 1983), and the incidence of literacy events
(Ortiz, 1986). In 1966, Durkin’s work in Chicago with African American families
proved to be a springboard for subsequent studies that focused on the ways low-
SES parents interact and work with their children to support literacy and they
contribute to their children’s literacy development.

In her work with eight families from diverse backgrounds, McCarthey (1997)
discovered differences between middle-class and working-class families in the
quantity and kinds of literacy materials, as well as the purposes of literacy.

Despite having fewer resources to obtain information about their children’s

40

classrooms, working-class parents’ knowledge about their children’s classrooms
was no different than that of middle—class parents’ knowledge. Parent of both
classes placed much importance on literacy activities.

Lareau (1989) found that teachers and parents from differing economic
groups might have dissimilar beliefs regarding their roles in educating children.
This study suggested that while the working-class families frequently stayed
away from schools, middle- and upper-class parents made a strong effort to be
involved and to communicate with their children’s teachers. Lareau also notes
that the middle-class parents were more inclined to believe education is a shared
responsibility; whereas, working-class parents believed that education was the
teacher’s responsibility.

Data from the EarIy Childhood Project (Baker, et al., 1996), which studied a
mix of low-income African American and European Nnerican families, and a mix
of middle-income African American and European American families, showed
that low-income families engaged in fewer print-related activities. Of the
activities that these families did participate in, most were intended to develop
certain literacy skills. Activities reported by low-income parents included such
structured activities as alphabet recitation and flashcards. Yet, some of the low-
income families also stressed the entertainment value of literacy and the
encouragement of intrinsic motivation. In contrast, middle-income parents
preferred to have literacy materials readily available in order to give their children
opportunities for forming their own insights into literacy. Entertainment-type
literacy activities such as shared reading were also highly encouraged by middle-

41

income parents. This study noted that children who performed better on
measures of story understanding and knowledge about print (e.g. letter
identification, concepts of print, functions of print) were those children in homes
in which there was a greater emphasis on literacy as a source of entertainment
rather than a greater emphasis on skills.

The Carnegie Foundation, in their 1991 report (as discussed in Whitehurst 8
Lonigan, 1998), revealed that 35 percent of children beginning school in the
United States enter with skills and motivation so low as to be at risk for academic
struggle. This disclosure signifies a striking “mismatch between what many
children bring to their first school experience and what schools expect of them if
they are to succeed" (Whitehurst 8 Lonigan, 1998, p.857). In their analysis of
social class differences in emergent literacy, Lonigan and Whitehurst (1998)
found that a study by White (1982) revealed that the socioeconomic status (SES)
of students’ families correlates .68 with academic achievement when schools are
ranked by the median SES. The authors also observed that a National
Assessment of Educational Progress (1991) study detailed important differences
in the reading and writing skills of children as a result of their parents’ income
level.

Recent literacy studies (see Lonigan 8 Whitehurst, 1998) have also reported
that children from low-income families are more apt to (1) be at risk for reading
difficulties, (2) be behind in the development of oral language skills, (3) lag in
letter knowledge, and (4) be delayed in phonological processing skills before

starting school. Social class differences have also been noted in the amount and

42

types of experiences children are exposed to that might support emergent
literacy. For example, Ninio (1980) reported that mothers from middle-SE8
groups tended to engage in more teaching behaviors during shared reading than
mothers from low-SE8 groups.

Hart 8 Risley (1995), in their landmark study regarding the development of
vocabulary in young children, found that socioeconomic status of the children’s
families accounted for 42 percent of the variance in the children’s rate of
vocabulary growth (r= .65), 40 percent of the variance in children’s vocabulary
use (5 .63), and 29 percent of the variance in their IQ test scores (r= .54) when
they were three years old. Family SES made a tremendous difference in the
amount of talking in the family as noted in earty studies (see Hart 8 Risley,
1995). For example, when comparing the average number of utterance per hour
that the parents spoke to the child, the authors found the utterances for the high-
SES parents was 487 per hour, for the middle-SES parents was 301 per hour,
and for the lower SES parents is was 178 utterances to the child per hour. The
Hart 8 Risley study proposed that parents “who provide more of the
fundamentals, larger amounts of diverse language experience and more
encouragement to learn, tend to also add nuances” (p.158), such as listening and
encouraging children to expand on their thoughts. These parents are more apt to
promote independence by asking for acquiescence rather than demanding it, as
well as naming and explaining everything despite the attention or development of
the child.

43

Caution must, however, be taken when an attempt is made to portray the
homes of poor children as lacking in literacy (Sulzby 8 Edwards, 1993). It has
been noted that hidden literacy, or literacy that doesn’t match the expectations of
schools, can be found in the daily lives of children and families. For example,
Anderson and Stokes (1984), in their cross-cultural study of Iow-SES families
found that because the majority of educators are more apt to look for activities
such as shared reading and homework assistance rather than the many other
incidences of literacy in poor homes, literacy support was misjudged.

Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines (1988) also discovered that being a poor young
child does not necessarily mean living in an environment totally lacking in literacy
opportunities. Despite personal and economic challenges, the families of Black,
urban six-year-olds in their study provided literacy activities that in fact supported
the successful development of reading and writing skills. It was noted that the
literacy experiences in these homes were actually very similar to those Black and
White higher SES families studied by Heath (1983).

Children are also exposed to literacy in other hidden ways. For example, the
Schieffelin and Cochran-Smith (1984) study of Asian refugee families noted that
children were successful in reading and writing despite the fact that there was no
regularity of exposure to reading or other print materials. However, literacy in the
tradition of these families included functional and consequential types of tasks
such as personal correspondence through letter writing and filling out forms.
Despite parents neither reading to their children nor providing printed material for

them, he children still developed the necessary emergent skills for successfully
literacy development.

Along with the concern that children of differing SES levels may not be offered
the same literacy-rich environments and experiences at home, there is also
apprehension regarding the divergence in literacy-rich environments between
low- and high-SE8 classrooms. In her recent study, Duke (2000) found
considerable discrepancies in print experiences and environments when
comparing very Iow- and very high-SES first-grade classrooms. The data
showed important differences in the amount of print experience, the type of print
children experienced, and the nature of the print experience offered to students.
For example, Duke found that first-grade classroom libraries in low-SES
classrooms were about 40 percent smaller that those in high-SE8 classrooms
with fewer books on display, and the high-SES classrooms presented more
printed material in the classroom environment. These findings raised high
concern regarding the importance of looking at the link between classroom
settings and socioeconomic status. If the literacy environments for students in
Iow-SES districts are lacking when children first enter school, this might be
another negative contribution to the widening achievement gap among low- and
high-SES students.

The strong link between emerging literacy and later literacy is well recognized.
There appears to be strong evidence indicating that children from low—SES
homes have relatively lower levels of emerging literacy skills compared to

children from middle- and upper-SES families. However, discretion must be

45

used in literacy analyses for the reason that various examinations of home
factors as related to literacy development provides evidence that economic levels
alone do not determine school success or failure (e.g., Taylor 8 Dorsey-Gaines,
1988)

Readiness Education Prior to Kindergarten En_t_ry

A look at readiness education prior to kindergarten entry shows an evolution
over the past century. Not only have the institutions of readiness education
changed, readiness expectations have changed, as well. Progressive study
shows that as these programs have expanded, so have the expectations for
children. Kindergarten teachers’ expectations for children’s emerging literacy
skills may be influenced by the fact that most children now have some group
experience before starting kindergarten.

Historically, early childhood education programs meant nursery school or
center-based care (Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren, 2004). The term early
childhood was used in regard to children five years old and younger. Because
first grade was usually a child’s first primary school experience, the distinction
between early and later childhood was delineated as such. In recent times, we
have realized that significant changes in children’s cognitive, social, and physical
development are more likely to take place round seven- or eight-years of age.
Early childhood is currently identified as birth to age eight. Current programs
serve children with disabilities, as well as children and families from diverse
cultural, linguistic, and economic backgrounds (Bredekamp 8 Copple, 1997). A

variety of federal, state, and local early childhood programs are offered as half-

46

day or full-day programs. Table 1 illustrates an approximate historical timeframe

of readiness thinking.

47

Table 1

Approximate Historical Timeframe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for formal schooling,
resulting in the creation
of the Head Start
program. Also seen is
the rapid development of
center based care for
children.

 

reading readiness
approach. Kindergartens
increasingly engage in
formal reading
instructions. A ‘pushing
down” effect of the first
grade curriculum into the
kindergarten can be
seen.

 

Historical Prevailing Thought on Prevailing Thought on Influential
Context Readiness Literacy Education
Leaders
1900- 3-, 4-, and 5-year olds Teaching reading to John Watson
1920 (all of whom were young children through Friedrich
originally eligible for direct group instruction is Froebel
kindergarten) are not seen as inappropriate John Dewey
ready for intellectual and perhaps even Maria
activity. Primary harmful. Montessori
emphasis for early
Ieaming was from play
and activity, not
symbols.
1920- As 3- and 4-year olds Reading readiness is Arnold Gesell
1950 moved out of seen as the product of Sigmund
kindergarten and into maturation (i.e., children Freud
early childhood classes, must be 6-years old in
kindergarten focused on order to learn to read).
preparing children for
first grade. The concept
of maturation prevailed.
Curricula focused on
readiness activities that
supported children’s
social and emotional
growth rather than
stressingggnitive skills
1950- A thrust toward earlier There is a shift away Erik Erikson
1980 education is tied to infant from reading readiness Jean Piaget
research that shows that as a product of B. F. Skinner
preschoolers know more maturation to readiness Charles
than had generally been as the product of Reed
thought. Eariy experience. Many Marie Clay
intervention is the key to kindergarten and first
preparing young children grade teachers take a

 

48

 

Table 1 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

1980- Readiness is based on Emergent literacy William Teale
1990 development, which in replaces reading Elizabeth

turn is influences by readiness. Research Sulzby

many environmental shows that young

factors, most importantly children demonstrate

the home. earIy reading skills
before formal schoolipg.

1985- Two viewpoints compete EarIy literacy instruction Bredekamp
Present for attention. One view is embedded in age Copple

continues to observe appropriate activities. Neuman

that readiness is Children's early literacy Lonigan

developmental. The Ieaming is embedded in Whitehurst

competing view sees a system of oral Morrow

readiness as a communication and story

maturational process as reading.

can be seen in the delay

of sending children to Emergent literacy is still

kindergarten with the a dominant influence in

goal of making sure research, education, and

children are ready for policy-making.

tasks forrneriy found in

first grade. Readiness is

seen as preparation for

kindergarten. In most

states, readiness is

determined py age.

2001- The Federal government Snow
Present Iegislates the No Child Burns

Left Behind Act, within Griffin
which literacy programs Soderrnan
for preschool-age (Early Whiren
Reading First) and Kostelnik
kindergarten through Gregory
third grade (Reading

 

 

First) children, are
created to enhance
reading readiness.
These programs
influence the types of
reading programs and
assessments that will be
used by local school
districts.

 

 

49

 

The current increased demand for early childhood programs can be attributed
to an expanding recognition that experiences in the early years have a profound
effect on young children’s development (Bredekamp 8 Copple, 1997). Past
decades of research confirm that both short— and long-ten'n positive effects on
children’s cognitive and social development are gained from high-quality
developmentally appropriate early childhood programs (Barnett, 1995, as found
in Bredekamp 8 Copple, 1997). A second reason for the jump in demand, and
perhaps the most important reason, is the increase in employed families.
Approximately 70 percent of mothers with children under the age of six are
employed (U. S. Census Bureau, 2003). Children of employed parents attend
any number of different settings that vary in goal and quality. The National
Center for Education Statistics (2002) notes that in the year 2001, almost 88
percent of children ages 3, 4, and 5 were enrolled in programs, most of which are
not in the public sector. While kindergarten attendance is not yet compulsory in
all states, about 95 percent of eligible children attended a kindergarten program
in the year 2000 (U. S. Department of Commerce, 2001). As a result of the rise
in need for child care, and the growing demand for early childhood education
programs, most children now enter first grade with some previous experience in
group education (Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren, 2004).

With the spotlight on early education more now than ever before, there is an
increased need to understand the diverse, as well as the shared roles and goals

of early education programs. The history of early childhood programs illustrates

 

 

 

the attempt to create a balance between family and society and also a struggle to
meet the increasing demands for both education and physical care.
Child Care

Until only the last several decades, childcare was not considered in the realm
of either early childhood education or child development (Caldwell 8 F reyer,
1982). Social reformers and welfare groups first established childcare in large
cities for the physical care of infants of working mothers (Read 8 Patterson,
1980). Interest in young children was on the upswing in the nineteenth century
due to the increase demand for outside care from working mothers, the medical
findings that health was related to sanitary conditions, and the discovery that the
death rate for infants whose mothers work was higher than that for infants whose
mothers did not work.

According to Read 8 Patterson (1980), the first day nursery to open in the
United States was the Nursery and Child’s Hospital in New York City in 1854.
Nurses cared for children of patients who were now employed. By the turn of the
century there were about 175 nurseries for children of immigrant and poor
working mothers, most of which were located in settlement houses. Many
facilities grew to include toddlers and preschool-age children in their programs.
However, with this growth came overcrowding and a drop in good physical care.
In order to raise the standards of care, the National Federation of Day Nurseries
was created in 1898.

The idea of locating programs in public schools was beginning to take hold in

the United States early in the twentieth century. While children’s physical health

51

and safety were still the primary goals, attention was being given to the notion
that children could also be taught tidiness, good manners, and other social
values (Read 8 Patterson, 1980). It was during this time that the child-study
movement encouraged nurseries to be opened in private schools, colleges, and
universities. The educational programs of these nursery schools also had an
influence on childcare. Read 8 Patterson (1980) note that early childcare and
nursery schools were alike in structure and program in that both focused on
health, nutrition, and social and emotional development using nursery school
trained teachers in both settings. However, unlike nurseries, which were meant
as a supplement to the upper-middle and upper-class families, childcare was an
essential service to immigrants and poor working mothers.

While me 1920’s and 1930’s saw a reduction in the number of childcare
programs, there was resurgence in the 1940’s at the onset of World War II.
Once again, women were needed in the work force for war industries. Federal
money was issued through the Lanham Act in 1941 as a support for new group
services for families in war impacted areas (Edwards, 2000). The operation of
these centers until after the war provided jobs for the considerable number of
unemployed teachers, social workers, and nurses. However, most Lanham
money was withdrawn by 1946 with no support for children in group settings until
the 1960’s. Government sponsored daycare continued from the 1960’s through
the 1990’s as a social welfare system designed to support the family life of the
poor and as a means to help people move from welfare to work. Edwards (2000)

52

noted that, in contrast, more costly private eariy education programs stressed
educational support for children.
Preschool

While literacy instruction was not traditionally a priority of early preschools,
decades of longitudinal research have now established the advantages
preschool education can give to children’s literacy Ieaming. At the time, many
parents responded to the nineteenth century challenge of early childhood
education by sending their young children along with their older children to the
common school. This may have been out of concern for the children’s
educational development or simply as a relief from caring for the children
(Kaestie 8 VInovskis, 1978). The practice of sending young children to the
district school with their older siblings revealed the belief that there were no age
distinctions and no differentiation of educational needs from older children.

As more and more young children attended the common school, two sources
of opposition emerged to doom the practice of sending young children to district
schools. The first concern was that of finances. Many people felt that it was the
parents’ job to educate young children, and including them in the district schools
stretched the budget (Strickland, 1982). Another concern was discipline. As the
focus and attention of the young children is much shorter than that of the older
students, their disruptions were a challenge to district teachers. As a result,
many district schools created rules excluding children under the age of five or six,
especially in urban and industrialized areas (Strickland, 1982). Consequently, if

53

young children were to be educated outside the home, it would have to be
beyond the traditional classrooms of the public school.

In contrast to sending children to district schools to be educated,
Englishman Robert Owen, an industrialist and social reformer influenced by
Pestalozzi’s educational reforms, created a whole new approach to early
childhood education. For the concerns of young children, Owen proposed a
program to support the unique nature and needs of young children, and thus the
infant school was born (Strickland, 1982). It was Owen’s contention that
education was a cradle to grave proposition. Young children should not only
receive custodial care if needed, but also education that fit the special character
of his young. Owen brought his ideas to the United States in the early part of the
nineteenth century. However, infant schools faded in the 1930s, partially due to
the still popular opinion that young children should be educated at home. By the
19203, a number of teachers who had worked with the Macmillan sisters in
England and Maria Montessori in Italy, among others, brought early childhood
education ideas and program models to the United States (Read 8 Patterson,
1980). A survey in 1931(see Read 8 Patterson, 1980) noted 203 nursery
schools in the United States. Many of these first schools were opened in
colleges and universities due to the child-study movement. However, during the
economic depression, the Federal Relief Emergency Administration sanctioned
the creation of nursery schools to provide unemployed people with work.
Unemployed teachers from primary and high schools, social workers, and others

were trained at universities and colleges that had laboratory schools. The

creation of free nursery schools brought hope that these types of schools would
become enduring organizations in the United States. Unfortunately, funding from
the WPA for nursery schools stopped in 1943 (Read 8 Patterson, 1980).

As the importance of early education became more and more apparent,
parents, as well as education advocates, were anxious to secure early
foundations of social and educational success for their children. Thus, the early
part of the twentieth century also saw the creation of cooperative nursery
schools. Besides wanting to ensure an early education program for their
children, mothers also sought parent education and child-free time to participate
in volunber work. The 19203 saw the spread of cooperative nurseries to various
states. Parent participation in the early education of children was an exciting and
growing idea. By mid-century the cooperative approach had spread
internationally (Read 8 Patterson, 1980).

The growth in cooperatives through the 1950s contributed to the overall rise
in the number of nursery schools in the United States (Read 8 Patterson, 1980).
Despite this rise, there was concern that children in the United States were falling
behind children in other countries. There was also increase concern regarding
the establishment of preschool programs to the exclusion of poor and mental or
physically handicapped children (Almy, 1975).

In order to address the rising inequity in early childhood opportunities, the
federally funded project Head Start was created in 1965. This program intended
to expand opportunities for young children from low income families

(Administration for Children and Families, 2002). The purpose was to create a

comprehensive program to meet the health, emotional, social, nutritional, and
psychological needs of young children aged three- to five-years-old. The
program initially served approximately 500,000 children (Read 8 Patterson,
1980). Current Head Start statistics state that almost one million children are
currently enrolled. Thirteen percent of those enrolled are children with disabilities,
including physical, mental, visual, health, hearing, emotional, speech and
language, orthopedic, and Ieaming impairments (Administration for Children and
Families, 2003).

While the establishment of the Head Start program is an attempt to fill the
early education gap for children from poor families, there is still no assurance that
all families are able to have access to affordable, high-quality early childhood
programs. Neuman et al. (2000) notes that preschool attendance hinges on
family income. About 50 percent of American four-year-old children whose family
income is less that $20,000 per year attend preschool, as compared to 80
percent of four-year-old children whose family income is more that $50,000 per
year. Additionally observed is the fact that the quality of preschool and childcare
programs differs to a large extent as a result of insufficient funding. Most
programs were found to offer only average quality with about 15 percent of
programs rated as good quality (see Neuman, Copple, 8 Bredekamp, 2000).
Characteristics of Eam Childhood Pmrams and Teachers

The characteristics and quality of programs for young children are of critical
importance today due to the fact that more and more children are attending

preprimary programs in the United States. Almost 88 percent of 3-, 4-, and 5-

year-old children are enrolled in programs in the United States (National Center
for Education Statistics, 2002). The status of these programs can be either for-
profit or non-profit (Saluja, EarIy, 8 Clifford, 2002). For-profit programs may
operate independently or by a national or local chain. Non-profit programs may
be affiliated with a public school, a religious organization, or another type of non-
profit program such as the YMCA. In their 1997 nationwide survey, Saluja, et al.
(2002) found that approximately 8 percent of the programs were Head Start
programs, 16 percent were in public schools, 25 percent were independent non-
profit or other public agency programs, 22 percent were associated with a
religious organization, and 29 percent were for-profit programs. While the
majority of young children attend a program in the United States, public funding
for these programs is lacking.

An lntemational comparison of public spending reveals that the United States
provides fewer early childhood education programs despite having more
resources than similarly developed countries (see Edwards, 2000). For example,
95 percent of 3-year—olds and all 4-year-olds in Belgium are in public schools or
in publicly funded programs; France provides free schooling for children ages
three and older, with preschool teachers having the equivalent of a master's
degree in Earty Childhood Development, and students of preschool education
receiving a stipend and fiee college education if they agree to teach for five
years; 87 percent of Italian 3- to 5-year olds are in school; and the government in
Denmark subsidizes childcare for children from six months to age seven, with

professional teachers and low child-to-teacher ratios in each classroom.

57

It is agreed that high-quality early childhood programs have potential positive
effects. Several significant studies of childcare and preschool programs (see
Bredekamp 8 Copple, 1997) point out that high-quality experiences are not the
standard. Only 15 percent of programs offered the good quality that was
necessary for children’s health, social, and cognitive development. In fact, 12 to
20 percent of children were found to be in settings thought to be detrimental to
their social and cognitive development, as well as dangerous to their health and
safety. Even more disturbing is the finding that 30 to 40 percent of infants and
toddlers were placed in unsafe environments (Cost, Quality, 8 Child Outcomes
Study Team, 1995).

Varied levels of classroom quality are found not only in childcare and
preschool, but also in children’s eariy elementary school experience (Bryant,
Clifford, 8 Peisner, 1991; Durkin, 1987). In a statewide observational study of
kindergartens, Durkin (1987) remarked that there is disparate quality of
kindergarten classrooms. For example, he found teachers tended to rely on
whole-group phonics instruction as their sole teaching strategy despite
assessment results that pointed to a variety of individual differences in children’s
literacy skills. Instead of using different teaching strategies such as small-group
or individual work to support children’s development, the teachers viewed
children who could not learn well with the one method as unready for first grade.

In order to improve the quality of early childhood education programs,
exceptional training and adequate compensation for teachers is necessary (Katz,

1997). Despite the fact that there is a positive relationship between the

education and consistency of staff and the quality of care, only a small
percentage of childcare teachers have four-year or advanced degrees, and the
staff turnover rate is as high as 25 to 50 percent per year (National Center for
Early Development and Learning, 1997). In most states, certification for
preschool teachers includes an early childhood teaching certificate or
endorsement when the preschool programs are located in the public school. The
1990 Profile of Child Care Settings (Kisker, Hofferth, Phillips, 8 Farquhar, 1991)
found that 47 percent of teachers had four-year college degrees, 13 percent had
an associate’s degree, 26 percent had some college, 13 percent had graduated
from high school, and 1 percent had less that a high school degree. The data
also showed that 88 percent of teachers in public schools had a college degree
or graduate degree, whereas 50 percent of teachers in religious settings and 45
percent of teachers in Head Start had college degrees. Saluja, et al. (2002)
found similar data in their study. They also note that many states are in the
process of creating new policies pertaining to teacher education requirements
which they hope will lead to a more highly educated early childhood staff. It
could, therefore, be suggested that preschool teachers may not be aptly
equipped educationally to support children’s needs for early literacy Ieaming.
Head Start classroom teacher qualifications for the state of Michigan (under
Head Start Act Sec. 648A) include a minimum of an associate degree in EarIy
Childhood Education or a field related to Early Childhood Education with
experience in teaching preschool children (Administration for Children and

Families, n.d.). However, there is alternative credentialing for classrooms that do

59

not have a teacher that meets the minimum degree requirements; one teacher
must have a Child Development Associate (CDA) credential that is appropriate to
the children being served; or a state-awarded certificate for preschool teachers
that meets or exceeds the requirements for a CDA credential; or a related child
development degree and a state-awarded certificate to teach in a preschool
program. General elementary school certification in the state of Michigan,
including earIy childhood teachers, requires a minimum of a bachelor degme, the
passing of the basic skills examination, the elementary certification examination,
and an exam in early childhood (Legislative Counsel, 2003).

However, not all states require teachers to pass certification exams. As of
1997, six states did not require an exam for teacher licensure (National
Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification, 1998).
Those states that do require teacher testing for certification vary in exam and
licensure standards. Each state is responsible for establishing individual
standards for licensure test passing cutoff points, their choice of tests or no test
at all, a re-take policy, and which states’ teacher licensures they recognize
(Gitomer, Latham, 8 Ziomek, 1999). It is a challenge for higher education to offer
teacher training models that will prepare students to pass teacher certification
tests, teach students the skills necessary to cultivate appropriate development in
young children, and, develop collaborative programs with local early childhood
programs to enhance quality of care of children and support the development of
early childhood teachers as professionals.

It should also be noted that historically, the majority of early childhood
teachers have been White females. This characteristic seems to still be
prevalent in the early childhood setting. For example, a study of teachers of 3-
and 4-year-olds by Saluja, Early, 8 Clifford (2002) found that 78 percent of
teachers were White, 10 percent were Black or African American, 5.7 percent
were Hispanic or Latino, 3.8 percent of mixed race, 1.1 percent Asian or Pacific
Islander, and .9 percent American Indian or Native Alaskan. They also found a
smaller percentage of White teachers in Head Start programs than other types,
and a higher percentage of Hispanic or Latino teachers in the public schools than
in other programs. The average age of these same teachers was 39 years, with
99 percent of teachers across programs being female.

Today, a largely White, female population, most of whom have a four-year or
advanced degree, characterizes kindergarten teaching in the public school
system. Teachers in the public schools most likely have to pass a teacher
certification exam, for which they may or may not be adequately prepared.
Certification of preprimary teachers is not required. However, financial
compensation is low in nonpublic early education settings, job turnover rates are
greater, and teachers’ academic skills are more dubious than in public school
settings (Edwards, 2000).

Kindergarten Education: Yesterday and Today

By looking at kindergarten education over time, an understanding of the

current position of kindergarten teachers may be gained. Historical thought and

research gives way to current thinking and societal pressure resulting in the

61

downward push of the elementary curriculum. These pressures may perhaps
shape teacher expectations for children’s literacy development.

Friedrich Froebel’s late nineteenth-century idea to create a children’s garden,
or kindergarten, specifically addressed the educational needs of young children
based on their level of development (Downs, 1978; Morrow, 1993). Froebel, a
student of Pestalozzi, based his educational system on the notion that mankind
was the physical personification of God’s reason. Because Fmbel believed that
all things unfolded their nature according to a divine prepattemed plan, in order
to best educate a child one need only discover the connection between the
child’s outer and inner worlds (Shapiro, 1983).

Froebel saw the need to divide die process of early education between birth
and age six into separate stages of mental and physical development: infancy,
early childhood, and childhood. The development at each stage determines
educational responsibilities. It was the early childhood years of 4 to 6 that most
interested Froebel. He searched for a program that would serve as a link
between the loving, yet permissive home environment, and the submissive
atmosphere that the school discipline required (Shapiro, 1983). Unhappy with
the current offerings of the time, he created the kindergarten. The idea of the
kindergarten was to allow children of like age to learn together outside the
influence of the family and school. Children would be able to explore their worlds
naturally through a curriculum based on games and occupations. Formal reading

instruction was never a part of the curriculum (Froebel, 1889).

62

Believing educated teachers to be an integral part of the kindergarten
program, F roebel insisted that the teachers or kindergartners be particularly
trained in child development and care. The kindergartner (is. the teacher) was
responsible for children’s social, physical, and spiritual development in a
community of peers (Palmer, 2001). The fundamental nature of teaching was
adjusting the topics to be learned to the child’s present stage of development.
The term child-centered originated with Froebel and continues to be an important
theme in early childhood education (F roebel, 1889). Froebel’s emphasis on play
has also had a great impact on practice. It is play, Froebel argued, that is the
child’s primary method of gaining knowledge about the world.

Initially, kindergarten served both a philanthropic and religious purpose in the
United States (Hill, 1996). Most kindergartens were set up in the most run-down
parts of cities where many poor and immigrant children lived. Cultured and
eager women, trained in philanthropy, supported normal schools, taught in the
morning and spent afternoons as social-welfare agents assisting parents in
finding employment, medical services, and even dental services for the poor
families they served. As a result of their financially overburdened state,
philanthropic boards resorted to pleading with the public schools to integrate the
kindergarten as the foundation grade into the public school system.

However, the kindergarten classroom did not acclimate smoothly into the
public school system. After the financially troubled philanthropic agencies
convinced the public school system to take over the burden of kindergarten

financing and administration, kindergarten teachers discovered that there was no

longer time to play the important role of social-welfare agent. Teachers no longer
had time to play the role of medical inspector, social caseworker, or visiting
teacher (Hill, 1996). The kindergarten classroom also saw a considerable
increase in the number of students per classroom with the introduction of the
double session. Gone were the opportunities for parent guidance and assistance
in the afternoons. There was also much resistance by first grade teachers to
accept the new role kindergarten played as the child’s first school experience.

By the mid-19203 approximately 12 percent of American five-year-olds were
enrolled in kindergartens. While the adoption of kindergarten into the public
school system saw a profound change in the education of young children, so too
did the upsurge of professionalization of early childhood education (Shapiro,
1983). A steady rise in important early childhood research and education centers
by influential American universities gave way to the emergence of new voices
concerning early childhood education. Many prominent institutions of higher
education including the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station, the Yale Clinic of
Child Development, and the Child Welfare Institute at Teachers college,
Columbia University were now centers of child study.

About this same time, the child-centered theories of John Dewey and
William Kilpatrick were developing in contrast to the behavior theories of John 8.
Watson and Edward L. Thorndike at Columbia University. Dewey (1990) and
those with similar theories emphasized the importance of social interaction and
how each in his own way is a part of the social whole. To have a democracy,

children must be taught to interact with others in society. This was in contrast to

the behaviorist view of planned goals and instruction. In order to reconcile the
two schools of thought, Patty Smith Hill (Shapiro, 1983) created the conduct
curriculum, which combined Dewey's social goals with Thomdike’s Ieaming
objectives. This integrated curriculum was well accepted by the preservice
teacher graduates of the time.

The 19303 brought a new, emerging leader in child development theory.
Arnold Gesell, a psychologist who began as a student of G. Stanley Hall,
believing intelligence to be fixed and development to be predetermined,
proposed to ascertain a pattern of normal growth in young children (Shapiro,
1983). Gesell developed his theory through observational studies of growth and
behavior of children from good homes or of high-socioeconomic status. The
basic tenet of his theory says that as long the infant or child is properly cared for,
maturation advances in an orderly fixed rate. Thus, he supported the notion that
maturation is the most important factor in Ieaming to read. Children should not
learn to read until they are deemed developmentally ready, usually around the
age of six. However, Gesell was criticized for not including individual differences
among children in his studies, as well as making over-generalized statements
about development (Thomas, 2000). While Gesell’s innovative child-study
methods still play an important role in the observation of children, his theories
generally lost favor late in the twentieth century to more comprehensive theories.

The concept of maturational readiness remained popular through the mid-
twentieth century. Curricula were based on the developmental norms for the age

ranges in question. The emotional well-being of children was of emphasis during

this time as a result of Freud’s discernment that childhood education might assist
in the prevention of mental illness, as well as Dewey’s continued influence on the
concentration of allowing children opportunities to interact socially and shengthen
their emotional well-being (Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren, 2004).

The end of WorId War It brought another change in early childhood education.
The biggest trigger in reassessment of early education in the mid—twentieth
century came with the launch of a Russian sputnik in 1957. This put the
American space program embarrassingly well behind the Russian program.
Many blamed education as the cause. American education was now under the
microscope and early childhood education was the focus. Parents feared that
kindergarten was lacking in intellectual stimulation. “The shift toward preparation
in the kindergarten for later academic skill, foreshadowed in the ‘reading
readiness’ programs of the 19203, was accelerated” (Shapiro, 1983, p. 194).

Progressive kindergarten education continued to characterize curriculum
development in the light of encouragement of growth and development, as well
as the realization of specific Ieaming. Yet, as the progressive education
movement faded, less emphasis was put on development and more concern
focused on achieving specific Ieaming outcomes (Spodek, 1996). The readiness
notion of the kindergarten of the time is well illustrated by Gans, Stendler, and

Almy (1952) as the 3R’3 Curriculum:

‘l'he3R’sapproachhasnotonlyprevailedintheprimarygrades, butithasreacheddowninto
the five-year-old kindergarten. Counting, some writing and reading readiness activities chiefly in
thefonn ofworkbook exercises have been typical experiences in kindergartenwhere this
curriculum has been in operation. Under such a setup the kindergarten is seen as a year of
settling downtorchildren, ofadjustingtositting stillandfollowing directions, sothattheywil be
better prepared fora more rigorous attack on the 3R3 during first grade (p.80-81).

A3 a result of this turn in focus, educators began to seek out updated theory and
methods that could answer not only the call for preparation in the kindergarten for
later academic skills, but that could also provide solutions to the widening gap
between the educational opportunities of rich and poor children in America.

The work of Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, while previously recognized,
now came under close consideration of psychologists and educators (Spodek,
1996). In the tradition of Dewey, Piaget’s focused on cognitive development, and
his understanding that children are capable of only certain types of intellectual
tasks at certain stages, helped create an early childhood curriculum that focuses
on decision making, problem solving, self-discipline, goal setting, planning one’s
own activities, and cooperating with teachers and peers in evaluating leaning
(Morrow, 1993). He also stressed that Ieaming takes place when the child
interacts with peers and adults in a social setting as they act upon the
environment Especially useful in the classroom were the distinctions Piaget
made between imitation (the child accommodating to the extemal world) and play
(the child assimilating new information into the existing frameworks) (Shapiro,
1983).

A3 Piaget developed only a theory of development and not a program of
education, early childhood advocates had to create their own programs using
Piaget’s hypotheses of early Ieaming and development (Kostelnik, Soderman, 8
Whiren, 2004). As a result, mid-century earIy childhood programs were based on
a variety of adaptations. These included strictly following Piagetian theory, but

also incorporated theories focusing on the interaction between both

67

environmental and biological influences such as Erikson’s emotional
development theory, Bandura’s social Ieaming theory, Dewey’s theory of play,
and Vygotsky’s theory of language and culture. This incorporation of theories
and practices established what is now recognized as the interactionist approach
(Kostelnik, et al., 1999).

The spread of the interactionist approach inspired early educators to rethink
their role in the classroom, as well as take a new look at the use of materials in
the classroom, and the goal of early education (Kostelnik, et al., 2004).
However, there was also a growing trend evident in many early childhood
classes and particularly in kindergartens that put excessive importance on rote
learning and whole group instruction of a specific set of academic skills
(Bredekamp 8 Copple, 1997). Considerable thought was also being given to the
methods used to test, place, and retain young children. Because young children
were being subjected to readiness and screening methods based on the same
narrow academic goals that typified the elementary curricula, a growing number
of children were distinguished as not ready for kindergarten or first grade and
were subsequently referred to transition classes, retained, or denied entry.

As a result of this growing multiplicity of programs, and an expanding
movement toward more formal, academc instruction of young children, as seen
in the downward push of the elementary curriculum, position statements on
developmentally appropriate practices were published by the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (Bredekamp, 1987).

The key position was that programs intended for young children should be based .

on what is known about the development of young children (Bredekamp 8
Copple, 1997). The guidelines for developmentally appropriate practices set by
the NAEYC were helme not only for daily program decisions nationally and
internationally, many state departments of education in the United States have
used the guidelines to augment policy and program evaluation choices, as well
(Bredekamp 8 Copple, 1997).

A joint position statement from the lntemational Reading Association (IRA)
and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) was
adopmd in 1998 (Neuman, Copple, 8 Bredekamp, 2000). This important
document was intended to guide the establishment of developmentally
appropriate settings and practices that best contribute to the development of
children’s literacy. The statement was aimed at not only teachers of young
children in schools and early childhood programs, but also anyone who works
with or can contribute to the development of children from birth through age
eight.

It is through these position statements that a call was made for educators,
families, and caring communities to come together to share the responsibility in
educating young children in ways that are developmentally appropriate.
Developmentally appropriate practices (Bredekamp 8 Copple, 1997) in literacy
education take into account what is known about children’s development and
Ieaming, individual children’s progress along the continuum of literacy
development, and the social and cultural contexts in which children live
(Neuman, Copple, 8 Bredekamp, 2000).

69

Today, kindergarten expectations are incurring changes in the United States
based on legislation passed in 2002 called the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB) (U. S. Department of Education, 2002). This legislation is meant to make
states, school districts, and schools accountable for the accomplishments of
individual students. It calls for states to create immediate standards in math
reading, and science by the 2005-2006 school year. Students are to be
assessed based on those standards, and in turn, school districts and schools will
be assessed on the performance of their students on these standardized tests.
While Michigan has already implemented the Michigan Curriculum Framework
(Michigan Department of Education, 1996) as a guide for curricular standards,
the twelve English Language Arts Content Standards found are broad cuniculum
statements that describe what students should know and be able to do by the
time they graduate from high school. In order to comply more comprehensively
with the NCLB act, the Michigan Department of Education sponsored the
development of the Grade Level Content Expectations (GLCE). Aligned with the
state content standards and benchmarks, these expectations are more concrete
expectations for each grade level and aid teachers in preparing students for
grade level assessments. Appendix A shows the Grade Level Content
Expectations for Kindergarten English Language Arts (Michigan Department of
Education, 2004).

Wrthin the NCLB act are the EarIy Reading First (ages 3 to 5) and the
Reading First (grades K to 3) initiatives. These programs focus on reading

readiness, professional development for teachers, as well as guide school

70

decisions on which reading and assessment programs to purchase. Schools
must supply programs that are based on proven scientific research or
scientifically based reading research (SBRR). The National Reading Panel was
asked by Congress to establish which scientifically proven principles help
children learn to read (Berger 8 Gunn, 2003). As a result, the panel suggested
that instruction, assessment, and professional development should concentrate
on phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.
Most notably, the panel supported explicit instruction in phonics and phonemic
awareness. Reading First has thus reenergized phonics instruction, much to the
dismay of whole language advocates.

Yatvin, Weaver, and Garan (2003), in their review of the Reading First
initiative, say that this plan comes from an “incomplete and flawed research
base, the National Reading Panel Reports, and from government documents and
regulations that substantially misrepresent the Report’s findings” (p. 28). For
example, they site that there is no evidence in the National Reading Panel
Report, or anywhere else, that children must develop phonemic awareness or
phonics before they begin to read print. Nor was it confirmed that there is
scientific research to support the use of commercial reading programs, which
may even have disadvantageous effects on children’s literacy development.
Interestingly, the National Reading Panel does not even recommend any
commercial programs. Yet, as a consequence of this deficient research and a
rush to implementation, there is widespread use of scripted, cookie-cutter type

commercial reading programs in schools.

71

Another concern with NCLB is the mandated assessment component (Goertz
8 Duffy, 2003). There is great concern and controversy about the tests
themselves and the use of the results. While most states have begun
restructuring efforts that comply with the performance standards and mandated
assessments, too frequently the assessment outcome becomes the and rather
the means used to improve instructional programs. Gilmore (2003), in her
comparison of literacy assessment and IQ scores, reasons that the move to
mandate standardized testing relegates literacy to a numbers game that includes
reading scores, percentiles, and grade levels, just as IQ scores do. She
surrnises that literacy assessment of this type, just like IQ scoring, inhibits access
to literacy and creates another barrier to literacy for certain social groups.

The NCLB legislation has also raised questions about how to deal with the
literacy assessment programs schools already have in place (Berger 8 Gunn,
2003). Changing programs can have a less than positive effect with schools and
teachers. For example, Berger 8 Gunn (2003) discuss that a reading researcher
at the University of Michigan has found that in Michigan, 20,000 teachers have
been trained to use a literacy assessment program called the Michigan Literacy
Progress Profile (MLPP). This particular program was created and researched in
Michigan. However, the program cannot be used in Reading First programs in
Michigan because it is not an (U. S.) Education Department endorsed program.
This has caused much resentment among teachers who must now go through
another training process with a new Reading First plan, one that they view as an

unrelated addition, not linked to the MLPP. It should be noted that group-

72

administered, nomi-referenced standardized testing is inappropriate for young
children.

It is recommended that this type of conventional assessment be done no
sooner than the fourth grade. Recommendations call for more feasible
assessment of children’s literacy development should be done using a variety of
indicators across a continuum of time (Bredekamp 8 Copple, 1997).

The success or failure of the recent NCLB initiative hangs in the balance.
Kindergarten curricula may seemingly undergo more changes in the coming
years as a result. However, despite changes in education mandates, children's
literacy will still be found to develop along a certain continuum. Teachers will still
teach literacy skills to children who come to school with a variety of emerging
literacy skill levels. Therefore, it is important for kindergarten teachers to be
aware of the progress of children’s literacy development. A survey of
kindergarten teacher perceptions of when certain literacy skills should be
developed will contribute to our understanding of how aware kindergarten

teachers are of Iiteracy’s developmental continuum.

Summag
The development of emergent literacy skills is a continuous process that

begins at birth and continues throughout life. In order to ensure the reasonable
and appropriate development of these important skills, children must be

immersed in a wortd of language and print in their immediate environment.

73

Contemporary research has helped unfold an understanding of literacy
development Studies have shown that an environment in children’s homes and
early childhood education settings that is rich in print and language is of the
utmost importance for the development of early reading and writing skills. Focus
has been given to the important role the home, as well as the preprimary
environment play in terms of shared reading, reading instruction, and availability
of reading materials. Yet, much less consideration has been given to seeking
information about whether home or school experiences are more vital to literacy
development, how literacy beliefs at home and school vary, and how young
children carry information from one setting to another.

Many social and cultural factors play important roles in both reading and
writing development. Teachers should be aware of how these factors augment
the level of opportunity, the richness of the environment, and quality of care
offered to young children, all of which in turn have a critical impact on literacy
development. Because literacy systems vastly differ from one community to
another, teachers of children age’s three to five, as well as teachers of children in
kindergarten through third grades, must be especially sensitive to the literacy
expectations in their communities.

Early childhood education programs, philosophies, and teachers have all seen
change over the last century. Numerous studies have helped create a better
understanding of how young children develop, which have subsequently aided in
the formation and establishment of more appropriate approaches to teaching and
Ieaming. Nonetheless, there are still no set standards for early childhood teacher

74

preparation. Given that teacher knowledge and practice varies with both teacher
training and personal beliefs, further study is necessary to discover which
emerging literacy skills early childhood education teachers believe they are
primarily responsible for teaching. The next chapter describes the methodology
to achieve the study of kindergarten teacher beliefs.

75

CHAPTER THREE
METHODS
The purpose of this study was to investigate the perception of kindergarten

teachers regarding when children best acquire emerging literacy skills.

Research Desk] n

The design of this study was survey research. This study was a cross-
sectional design taken during the spring of 2004 from the population of
kindergarten teachers in Ingham County

Variables

The dependent variable in this study was kindergarten teacher perceptions
about emerging literacy skills. The independent variables included personal
demographics, teaching background, teacher education background,
professional activities, and classroom characteristics.

Subjects

The study population was comprised of all 131-kindergarten teachers in the
twelve scth districts that make up the Ingham lnterrnediate School District in
mid-Michigan. These public school districts included the rural districts of
Dansville Schools, Leslie Public Schools, Stockbridge Community Schools, and
Webberville Community Schools; and the urban school districts of East Lansing

Public Schools, the Lansing Public Schools, Haslett Public Schools, Holt Public

76

Schools, Mason Public Schools, Okemos Public Schools, Waverly Community
Schools, and Williamston Community Schools. The designation of rural and
urban is taken from the United States Census Bureau 1995 definition, which
states that “urban” consists of places of 2,500 or more persons (United States
Census Bureau, 1995).

The sample population was comprised of 42 kindergarten teachers from nine
school districts, two rural districts and seven urban districts. Ninety-eight percent
of the sample were female teachers of whom 92.9 percent were White, five
percent were African-American, and two percent were Hispanic. This
composition is similar to national characterizations of kindergarten classrooms
(Edwards, 2000).

This put the actual response rate of the surveys at 32 percent. According to
Baruch (1999), a response rate of 55.6 with a standard deviation of 19.7 was
found to be the average response rate in academic studies. Three school
districts, Haslett, Leslie, and Webberville had no kindergarten teachers return the
survey. Surveys in these districts may not have been returned due to possible
principal interference, poor timing of the survey, or lack of interest in participation
by the teacher (Baruch, 1999).

The Ingham County Intermediate School District (IISD) area was chosen for
this study as it included diverse groups of teachers and students among and
within the schools in the IISD. As the IISD showed an early interest in the
formation of this project, the Supervisor of Early Childhood Education-School

Development Services was contacted by telephone to confirm the IISD’s

continued interest. Upon confirmation of the IISD’s willingness to participate in
this study, a list of all of the kindergartens in each of the participating schools
was created.

An initial contact with the superintendent of each district was made by the
IISD as a means of obtaining consent to implement the project in the district.
Upon district approval, the principal of each elementary building was sent a letter
confirming the consent Each principal received a copy of the survey and letter
that will was sent to the teachers (See Appendix D for a copy of the principal
letter).

Teachers who participated were eligible for one of four gift certificates to be
given away. The consent letter attached to the returned survey was separated
from the survey and put into a container from which the four winners of the gift
certificates were drawn.

Instrumentation
One instrument was used to collect data. The Emerging Literacy Skills Survey
was designed specifically for this study. The questionnaire was divided into four
sections. The first section collected demographic information such as personal
demographics, teaching background, teacher education background,
professional activities, and classroom characteristics. The second section asked
teachers to indicate the sources that have been most influential in forming their
expectations for children’s readiness for kindergarten and whether their
expectations of what children are capable of doing are congruent with other
people and standards. The third section asked the teachers to list which five

78

emerging literacy skills they thought were the most important for children to have
upon entry into kindergarten. The fourth section asked teachers to choose which
emerging literacy skills they thought children should primarily develop prior to
kindergarten entry, which emerging literacy skills they thought children should
primarily develop during the kindergarten year, which emerging literacy skills
should be primarily developed during first grade, and whether this belief was
consistent with district demand. The variables were selected from the Michigan
Department of Education, Michigan State Board of Education, Head Start Child
Outcomes Framework, High/Scope Child Observation Record, National
Association for the Education of Young Children, Lansing School District
Curriculum Benchmarks for Kindergarten, and Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren,
2004.

The emerging literacy skills listed in the fourth section of the survey clustered
into six groups: phonological awareness (2 skills including recognize rhyming
words and breaking words into syllables); alphabetic principle (2 skills including
identify letters in the alphabet and associate letter names to their sounds);
phonemic awareness (3 skills including identify beginning/middle/end sounds);
oral language (15 skills including retell story details and use descriptive
language); concepts of print (24 skills including recognize own name in writing
and understand print contains a message); and communication abilities (3 skills
including develop interest in literacy experiences and listen attentively to stories).
The skills in this section were listed in random order. Each skill was written on

an individual piece of paper and drawn out of a container one at a time by a third

79

party. The random listing of the skills was meant to have the teachers consider
each skill individually and not influence the teacher by the order in which it was
presented. A reliability analysis was run yielding an alpha coefficient of .8916.
The full survey can be seen in Appendix B.

The tool has construct validity as it was based on emergent literacy theory,
particularly the works of Neuman, Copple, 8 Bredekamp (2000), Clay (1966),
Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004), Whitehurst 8 Lonigan (1998), and (T eale
and Sulzby (1986). The foundation of this theory notes that children’s reading
and writing abilities develop concurrently and interactively through experiences in
reading and writing. Emergent literacy theorists believe oral language plays a
key role in the development of emerging literacy skills of young children. Many
children begin to learn to read and write well before they enter formal schooling
by, among other things, vocabulary development, listening to stories being read
aloud, noticing signs and labels in their environment, and experimenting with
writing tools (Clay, 1966; Teale 8 Sulzby, 1989). Many children exhibit emergent
literacy behaviors such as pretending to read a favorite story to a teddy bear or
scribbling a letter to Grandma. Each survey item and its source can be seen in
Table 2.

The present survey was adapted from a previous survey constructed by the
researcher. The original survey was used in an investigation of kindergarten
teacher perceptions in the Lansing School District in Lansing, Michigan (T helen,
2002). Prior to the current study, the present survey was tested for usability and

validity in a pilot study. Five kindergarten teachers from Gratiot County

completed the survey. It took an average of approximately fifteen minutes for
teachers to finish the survey. When the teachers were done with the survey,
there was discussion as to the ease of taking the survey. The teachers noted that
the directions were understandable and easy to follow. Some teachers thought
that the percentages in the demographics section were difficult to specifically
ascertain. As a result, the word “estimate” was added to the directions in this
section. In regards to whether there were any emerging literacy skills not listed
that the teachers’ thought should be listed, there were none suggested. It should
be noted that there was an opportunity for teachers to state what they believe are
the five most important emerging literacy skills a child should have upon
kindergarten entry. This section allowed for teachers to note any skill(s) that
might be important to literacy development, but that were not listed on the

survey. There were no clarifications asked for, nor were there any further

suggestions.

81

Table 2

Instrument item literacy categories and item source

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Skill Source
Phonological Awareness
Break words intrgyllables Head Start Child Outcomes Framework
Recognize rhymigggwords Head Start Child Outcomes Framework
Phonemic Awareness
Identify beginning sounds Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004)
Identify middle sounds Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004)
Identify end sounds Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004)
Alphabetic Principle
Associate letter names with their sounds Michigan Department of Education
Understand that letters are formed in a Michigan Department of Education
specific way and are uncharyqi_ng
Identify letters of the alphabet Head Start Child Outcomes Framework
Oral Language

 

 

Engage in conversation with peers with
multiple exchanges

Head Start Child Outcomes Framework

 

Engage in conversation with adults with
multiple exchagges

Head Start Child Outcomes Framework

 

Retell story details

National Association for the Education
of Young Children

 

Pretend to read a book by telling a story
fromthepicturesonthecoverorinthe
book

Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004)

 

Identify common objects (e.g., vehicles)

Lansing School District Curriculum
Benchmarks for Kindergarten

 

Use descriptive language (e.g., I want to
ay with the small, red truck)

National Association for the Education
of Young Children

 

Respond to oral language with relevant
comments and (mestions

Michigan Department of Education

 

Repeat songs, fingerplays, and
movement activities

High/Scope Child Observation Record

 

Articulate intents, emotions, and desires

Head Start Child Outcomes Framework

 

Follow simple directions

Head Start Child Outcomes Framework

 

Formulate simple questions

Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004)

 

Speak clearIy enough to be understood
py others

Head Start Child Outcomes Framework

 

Use appropriate expressive vocabulary

Michigan Department of Education

 

Recognize common nouns and verbs
typical of daily life

Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004)

 

Retell a familiar story

Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004)

 

Concepts of Print

 

Use left-to-right, top-to—bottom orientation

National Association for the Education
of Young Children

 

Recognize own name in writing

Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004)

 

Understand where to begin reading

Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004)

 

 

Identify title of a book

 

Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004)

 

82

 

Table 2 (cont’d).

 

Understand that print contains a message

Head Start Child Outcomes Framework

 

Follow the print on a page, moving eyes
in the correct direction

High/Scope Child Observation Record

 

Understand the difference between
pictures and print

Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004)

 

Develop a concept of punctuation

Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004)

 

Understand the difference between letters
and words

Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004)

 

Recognize Iogographic print (e.g.,
McDonald’s, Kmart)

Head Start Child Outcomes Framework

 

Understand that words are separated by
spaces

Head Start Child Outcomes Framework

 

Write letters of the alphabet

High/Scope Child Observation Record

 

Develop a sight vocabulary

Micmgan Department of Education

 

Write some words

Michigan Department of Education

 

Distinguish between real and make-
believe

Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004)

 

Write a sentence

Michigan Department of Education

 

Use invented/temporary spelIng

Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004)

 

Exhibit reading-like behavior (e.g., turn

pages correctly, moving from front to
back)

High/Scope Child Observation Record

 

Write first name

mghIScope Child Observation Record

 

Write last name

fighlScope Child Observation Record

 

Draw a recognizable picture (self, family,
objects)

Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004)

 

 

Recognge lower case letters Michigan Department of Education
Recpgnize upper case letters Michigan Department of Education

 

Match spoken words with written ones

National Association for the Education
of Young Children

 

Developmental Communication
Abilities

 

Listen attentively to stories

Kostelnik, Soderman, 8 Whiren (2004)

 

Select literacy experiences when given a
choice

National Association for the Education
of Young Children

 

Read others’ facial and body expressions

 

 

Michigan State Board of Education

 

 

Data Collection Procedure

Upon committee approval of the proposal, approval was sought from Michigan
State University’s Institutional Research Board, the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). In order to achieve UCRIHS
approval for this study, a letter of consent to the kindergarten teachers was
submitted (See Appendix C), and a letter of notification to the principals (See
Appendix D), as well as assurances of complete confidentiality and privacy, and
fulfillment of all other procedures as directed by UCRIHS. As soon as University
approval was given see Appendix E), the researcher worked in cooperation with
the IISD to distribute copies of the survey to the kindergarten teachers in Ingham
County.

Building principals at each school received a notification letter and a packet of
surveys in individual envelopes via interdistrict mail. Teachers each received a
copy of the survey along with a stamped return envelope via interdistrict mail, as
well. Upon receiving the survey, kindergarten teachers had three weeks to fill it
out and return it directly to the researcher. A reminder postcard was mailed to
those teachers whose surveys had not been returned within the first two weeks.
If there was difficulty achieving a 40 percent response rate, individual schools
whose response rates are low were phoned to encourage the return of the
surveys with additional surveys being sent via interdistrict mail if necessary.

Teachers had an opportunity to participate in a drawing to win one of four
$50.00 gift certificates to a local bookstore. As surveys were returned, the

consent form with the teacher’s name, school name, and district on it was

separated from the survey and put in a secure container. Once the deadline for
the return of surveys had passed, four teachers names were drawn from the
returned consent forms. The winners were contacted via public mail and sent
one of the four gift certificates. Winners were from the Lansing (2), Mason (1),
and Holt (1) School Districts.

The information gathered from the surveys was kept in strict confidence. An
identification code was given to each survey upon receipt in order better manage
the data. However, the privacy of individual survey results was always protected.
Only the researcher had access to the collected data.

Anam

Before data were entered into an SPSS program, a statistician double-
checked the database set up to ensure accuracy and consistency. The analyses
for this study looked at the differences in teacher perceptions, as well as the
differences inherent in child situations, teacher situations, and contexts. For
example, there are differences inherent in child situations such as SES and
ethnicity. There are inherent differences in teacher situations such a length of
employment and professional affiliation. As well, there are differences inherent in
contexts such as all day or half-day kindergarten programs or low SES as
compared to high SES contexts. This study also looked at the sources teachers
believe have been most influential in forming their expectations for children’s
readiness for kindergarten, along with whether teachers believed their
expectations were congruent with other education specialists, perceptions, and

standards.

85

A summary of the study questions, hypotheses, analysis methods for each
question, and the survey questions specifically related to each hypothesis can be
found in Table 3. The independent variables listed on the Emerging Literacy Skill
Survey (See Appendix B) are purposefully unfactored. An alpha level of .05 was

chosen, meaning that the probability of a type I error is 5 times (or less) in 100.

Table 3

Summary of Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Analyses

 

 

 

Research Question Hypothesis Survey Analysis
question(s)
corresponding
to hypothesis
1. Which specific emerging 24 Frequencies,
literacy skills do kindergarten Percentages
teachers believe they are
primarily responsible for
teaching?
2. Is there any agreement 24 Frequencies,
among kindergarten teachers Percentages

as to which emerging literacy
skills they believe should be

 

primarily developed prior to

kindergarten entrance?

3. Is there any agreement 24 Frequencies,
among kindergarten teachers Percentages

as to which emerging literacy
skills they believe should be

 

primarily developed prior to

kindergarten entrance.

4. Is there any agreement 24 Frequencies,
among kindergarten teachers Percentages

as to which emerging literacy
skills they believe should be
primarily developed at the
beginning of first grade?

 

 

 

 

 

 

87

Table 3 (cont’d).

 

5. Do perceptions of
the acquisition of
emerging literacy skills
vary as a function of the
demographics of
kindergarten teachers?

 

 

Hypothesis #5A

There is no
relationship between
kindergarten
teachers’ personal
demographics and
beliefs about the
acquisition of
emerging literacy
skills

1,2

Frequencies,
Crosstabs,
Chi Square

 

Hypothesis #58

There is no
relationship between
kindergarten
teachers’ teaching
background and
beliefs about the
acquisition of
emerging literacy
skills.

3,4,5

Frequencies,
Crosstabs,
Chi Square

 

 

Hypothesis #50

There is no
relationship between
kindergarten
teachers” education
background and
beliefs about the
acquisition of
emerging literacy
skills.

 

6,7,8

 

Frequencies,
Crosstabs,
Chi Square

 

 

Table 3 (cont'd).

 

Hypothesis #50

There is no
relationship between
kindergarten
teachers”
participation in
professional activities
and beliefs about the
acquisition of
emerging literacy
skills

9,10,11,
12

Frequencies,
Crosstabs,
Chi Square

 

Hypothesis #5E

There is no
relationship between
kindergarten
teachers’ classroom
characteristics and
beliefs about the
acquisition of
emerging literacy
skills

13,14,15,
16,17,18,
19

Frequencies,
Crosstabs,
Chi Square

 

6. What sources
influence kindergarten
teachers’ expectations
of children’s literacy
readiness?

 

 

 

Hypothesis #6A

There is no
agreement among
kindergarten
teachers as to which
sources most
influence their
expectations of
children’s literacy
readiness.

 

20

 

Frequencies,
Crosstabs,
Chi Square,
Means

 

89

 

Table 3 (cont’d).

 

7. Are kindergarten
teachers’ beliefs
congruent with others
regarding children’s
literachapabilities?

 

 

 

 

Hypothesis #7A 21 Frequencies,
Crosstabs,

There is no Chi Square,
agreement among Means
kindergarten
teachers’
expectations and
their perceived
expectations of
others regarding
children’s literacy
capabilities.

8. Which literacy skills

do kindergarten

teachers believe are

the five most essential

skills children should

acquire by

kindergarten entry?
Hypothesis #8A 23 Frequencies,

Crosstabs,

There is no Chi Square
agreement among
kindergarten

 

teachers as to which
skills they think are
the five most
essential literacy
skills children should
acquire by
kindergarten entry.

 

 

 

 

Table 3 (cont’d).

 

9. Are kindergarten

 

 

teacher expectations of

skills to be developed

during the kindergarten

year congruent with

the Stat of Michigan

Kindergarten

Framework of Skills?
Hypothesis #9A 24 Percentages
Kindergarten
teacher
expectations of
skills to be
developed during
the kindergarten
year are not
congruent with the
State of Michigan

 

 

 

 

Framework of Skills.

 

Limitations

1. The study was limited due to the reliability of the instrument. However, the
internal consistency was tested by a pilot study.

2. The return rate of the surveys was less than 50 percent (actual rate of
return was 32%). However, every effort was made to elicit the most
returns possible.

3. There may have been differences between counties in Michigan that may
mitigate generalizabilities to the state, as well as state differences
between Michigan and other states in the United States.

4. As with other types of self-reported data, the data in this study may have
differed from expressive behavior that is objectively measured. Therefore,
the accuracy of this data may have been a limitation.

5. The unequal representation of ethnic groups of the respondents may have
caused limitations of comparisons of certain demographics in this study
(92.9% of respondents were White, 4.8% of respondents were African-
American, and 2.4% of respondents were Hispanic).

91

Th

an

Summam
This chapter reviewed the methods to be used in this study. The independent

and dependent variables were described along with the population under study.
A description of the instrument to be used was detailed along with a description
of the data collection procedures. Nine research questions were proposed with
corresponding hypotheses and the types of analyses to be used. Also noted
were the limitations the study presented. A complete analysis of the data is

presented in Chapter IV.

92

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

This chapter presents demographic characteristics of the sample, followed by
the results of the statistical analyses. These analyses are presented in order of
the nine research questions. Results are presented in table form followed by an
exploration of the findings.

Frequencies were used to analyze research questions one through eight.
Percentages were used in questions one, two, and nine. Crosstabs and Chi
Square tests were run for questions five, six, and seven. Frequencies and

percentages are reported in descending order of agreement.

93

Dempgraphic Characteristics of the Sample
Demographic data were collected on the sample. Table 4 displays a

comparison of the respondents on various demographic characteristics.

Table 4
Comparison of Dempgraphics' LN=4;)

 

Variable f %
Age

21-30 yrs old 12 28.6

36-50 yrs old 15 35.7

51-65 yrs old 15 35.7
Ethnicity

White 39 92.9

African-American 2 4.8

Hispanic 1 2.4
Years in Education

1-10 13 31.0

1 1-20 15 35.7

21-30 10 23.8

31-40 4 9.5
Years Teaching Kindergarten

1-5 12 28.6

6-10 18 42.9

1 1-35 12 28.6
Years Teaching Preschool

0 23 54.8

1-10 16 38.1

1 1-25 3 7.1
Major area of BA Study

Elementary Education 20 47.6

Early Childhood 14 33.3

Other 8 19.0

All

Cc

Table 4 (cont’d)

 

Variable f %
Highest Degree Earned
Bachelor 1 1 26.2
Master 29 69.0
Specialist 2 4.8
Early Childhood Endorsement
No 21 50.0
Yes 21 50.0
Member of National Association
for the Education of Young Children
No 36 85.7
Yes 6 14.3
Subscribes to Professional Journals
No 19 45.2
Yes 23 54.8
Attend Professional Conferences
No 12 28.6
Yes 30 71.4
Conferences Attended
Does not attend conferences 12 28.6
ACEI 1 2.4
MIAEYC 5 1 1.9
NAEYC 7 16.7
MRA 6 14.3
OTHER 1 1 26.2
Hours of Professional Development in the Last Year
0-15 8 19.0
16—39 10 23.8
40-60 14 33.3
61-200 9 21.4
Location of School
Rural 4 9.5
Urban 38 90.5

95

Table 4 (cont’d).

 

Variable f %
Type of Program This Year
‘/2 day 16 38.1
all day, every day 24 57.1
all day, every other day 2 4.8
Number of Students in Classroom (Ave)
15-20 22 52.4
21-27 20 47.6
Age of Students in Classroom
Age 5
0-9 students age 5 22 52.4
10-21 students age 5 18 42.9
Age 6
0-9 students age 6 20 47.6
10-23 students age 6 20 47.6
Age 7
0 students age 7 31 73.8
1-5 students age 7 10 23.8
Classroom Make-Up (%)
African American children
0-10 16 38.1
1 1-25 7 16.7
26-50 1 1 26.2
>50 8 19.0
Asian children
0-10 37 88.1
1 1-25 4 9.5
26-50 1 2.4
Hispanic children
0-10 29 69.0
1 1-25 9 21.4
26-50 3 7.1
>50 1 2.4
White children
0-10 6 14.3
1 1-25 5 1 1.9
26-50 1 1 26.2
>50 20 47.6
1 1-25 2 4.8

Laps

par
hav
lea
Mo
Ea
we
alt

SU

de
st
di:

(4

Table 4 (cont’di.

 

Variable f %
Other ethnicities of children
0-10 40 95.2
Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch (%)
0-10 15 35.7
1 1-25 2 4.8
26-50 5 1 1.9
:59 20 47.6

 

 

Forty-two kindergarten teachers took part in this study. The ages of the
participants were fairty evenly distributed as was the number of years teachers
have taught kindergarten. Most teachers had between one and thirty years of
teaching experience. The majority of teachers in this study were White (92.9%).
Most teachers had obtained a Master Degree (69.0%) with half receiving an
Early Childhood Endorsement. Interestingly, very few kindergarten teachers
were members of the National Association for the Education of Young Children,
although, in general, most do attend professional conferences (71.4%) and
subscribe to professional journals (54.8%).

The majority of kindergarten teachers in this study taught in an all day, every
day program (57.1%). Classroom sizes ranged from 15 to 27 students with most
students being 5 or 6 years of age. Ethnicity in classrooms was not often evenly
distributed with many classrooms having either a majority of White students
(47.6%) or pwdominately African-American (19.0%). About forty-seven percent

of classrooms had at least half of the students receiving free or reduced lunch.

97

m

Which specific emerging literacy skills do kindergarten teachers believe they
are primarily responsible for teaching?

Table 5 presents the list of emerging literacy skills kindergarten teachers were
to consider in the survey. Results are listed in descending order of agreement.
A majority indication will be where 50 percent or more of kindergarten teachers
specified they were primarily responsible for teaching a certain emerging literacy
skill. Also presented in this table are the data that indicate what percentage of
kindergarten teachers supposed that their expectations for the acquisition of
literacy skills were consistent with the perceived expectations of the school
district in which they work.

Table 5

Literacy Skills Teachers Believe They Are Primarily Responsible for Teaching

 

 

(N=42)
Emerging Is consistent with
Literacy Sk_ill f % district demand
Write some words 39 92.9 88.1
Understand the difference between

letters and words 39 92.9 85.7
Associate letter names with their sounds 38 90.5 85.7
Understand that words are separated

by spaces 38 90.5 83.3
Identify title of book 37 88.1 90.5
Identify beginning sounds 37 88.1 83.3
Write last name 36 85.7 88.1
Develop a sight vocabulary 36 85.7 90.5
Use Ieft-to—right orientation 35 83.3 83.3
Use invented/temporary spelling 35 83.3 85.7
Understand where to begin reading 35 83.3 81.0
Recognize rhyming words 35 83.3 85.7
Follow the print on a page

moving eyes in the correct direction 34 81.0 85.7
Match spoken words with written ones 33 78.6 90.5
Understand that letters are formed

in a specific way and are unchanging 33 78.6 83.3
Write a sentence 31 73.8 83.3
Retell story details 31 73.8 83.3
Recognize lower case letters 31 73.8 76.2
Retell a familiar story 29 69.0 90.5
Identify end sounds 29 69.0 78.6
Develop a concept of punctuation 28 66.7 81.0
Understand that print contains a message 27 64.3 76.2
Recognize upper case letters 27 64.3 78.6
Identify letters of the alphabet 25 59.5 76.2
Understand the difference between

pictures and print 25 59.5 78.6

Formulate simple questions 25 59.5 81.0
Break words into syllables 23 54.8 88.1
Choose literacy experiences

when given a choice 21 50.0 78.6
Respond to oral language with relevant

comments and questions 19 45.2 78.6
Identify middle sounds 19 45.2 85.7
Recognize Iogographic print 18 42.9 81.0
Use descriptive language 17 40.5 71.4
Distinguish between real and

make-believe 16 38.1 81 .0
Articulate intents, emotions, and desires 15 35.7 73.8
Write some letters 15 35.7 76.2

Table 5 (cont’dL

 

 

Emerging ls consistent with
Literacy 8ij f % tflsptrict demand
Read others’ facial and body expressions 15 35.7 71.4
Use appropriate expressive language 12 28.6 73.8
Pretend to read a book by telling a story

from the pictures 12 28.6 66.7
Engage in conversation with peers with

multiple exchanges 12 28.6 76.2
Write first name 10 23.8 69.0
Draw a recognizable picture 10 23.8 64.3
Exhibit reading-like behavior 10 23.8 64.3
Recognize own name in writing 9 21.4 73.8

Recognize common nouns and verbs

typical of everyday life 8 19.0 83.3
Listen attentively to stories 8 19.0 69.0
Identify common objects 8 19.0 71.4
Repeat songs, fingerplays and

movement activities 7 16.7 64.3
Speak clearty enough to be understood

by others 6 14.3 73.8
Engage in conversation with adults with

multiple exchanges 3 7.1 71.4
Follow simple directions 3 7.1 69.0_

 

Of the fifty emerging literacy skills offered, the majority (over 50%) of
kindergarten teachers indicated that they believe they are responsible for
teaching twenty-eight of them. The majority of teachers also indicated that they
thought their beliefs were consistent with district demand for those skills that they
believed they are responsible for teaching, as well as for those skills they did not
think they were responsible for teaching.

100

Question Two

Is there any agreement among kindergarten teachers as to which
emerging literacy skills they believe should be primarily developed prior to
kindergarten entrance?

Table 6 presents those emerging literacy skills for which a majority (50% or
more) of kindergarten teachers agreed should be primarily developed prior to

kindergarten entrance. Results are reported in descending order.

101

Table 6
Emerging Literacy Skills Kindergarten Teachers Believe Children Should

Primariy Develop Prior to Kindergarten Entrance (N= 42)

 

 

Emerging
Literacy Skfll f %
Engage in conversation with adults with

multiple exchanges 39 92.9
Follow simple directions 39 92.9
Speak clearly enough to be

understood by others 36 85.7
Repeat songs, fingerplays,

movement activities 35 83.3
Listen attentively to stories 34 81.0
Identify common objects 34 81.0
Recognize own name in

writing 33 78.6
Write first name 32 76.2
Exhibit reading like behavior

telling a story from the picture 32 76.2
Pretend to read a book by telling

a story from the pictures 30 71.4
Write some letters of the

alphabet 27 64.3
Draw a recognizable picture 26 61.9
Distinguish between real

and make believe 26 61.9
Articulate intents, emotions,

and desires 25 59.5
Engage in conversation with peers with

multiple exchanges 25 59.5
Use appropriate expressive

vocabulary 24 57.1
Recognize Iogographic print 22 52.4
Uses descriptive language 22 52.4
Read others facial and body expressions 22 52.4
Respond to oral language with

relevant comments, Questions 21 50.0

 

102

Of the 50 emerging literacy skills offered, kindergarten teachers indicated that
they thought 20 of them should be primarily developed prior to kindergarten
entrance. Two-thirds of the teachers agreed that 8 of these skills should be
developed prior to kindergarten entrance. At least half of all teachers agreed the
remaining 12 skills should be developed prior to kindergarten entrance. Ten of
these skills were oral language skills, 8 were concept of print skills, and 2 were

developmental communication skills.

Question Three
Is there any agreement among kindergarten teachers as to which emerging
literacy skills they believe should be primarily developed after kindergarten
entrance?
Table 7 presents those emerging literacy skills for which a majority (50% or
more) of kindergarten teachers agreed should be primarily developed after

kindergarten entrance.

103

Table 7
Emerging Literacy Skills Teachers Believe Should Be Primarily Developed After

Kindergarten Entrance (N=42)

 

Emerging
Literag Skill f %
Write some words 39 92.9
Understand the difference between

letters and words 39 92.9
Associate letter names with their sounds 38 90.5
Understand that words are separated 38 90.5

by spaces
Identify title of book 37 88.1
Identify beginning sounds 37 88.1
Write last name 36 85.7
Develop a sight vocabulary 36 85.7
Use left-to-right orientation 35 83.3
Use invented/temporary spelling 35 83.3
Understand where to begin reading 35 83.3
Recognize rhyming words 35 83.3
Follow the print on a page

moving eyes in the correct direction 34 81.0
Match spoken words with written ones 33 78.6
Understand that letters are formed

in a specific way and are unchanging 33 78.6
Write a sentence 31 73.8
Retell story details 31 73.8
Recognize lower case letters 31 73.8
Retell a familiar story 29 69.0
Identify and sounds 29 69.0
Develop a concept of punctuation 28 66.7
Understand that print contains a message 27 64.3
Recognize upper case letters 27 64.3
Identify letters of the alphabet 25 59.5
Understand the difference between

pictures and print 25 59.5

Formulate simple questions 25 59.5
Break words into syllables 23 54.8
Choose literacy experiences

when given a choice 21 5g.0

 

104

Of the 50 emerging literacy skills offered, kindergarten teachers specified that
28 of the skills should be developed after kindergarten entrance. Two-thirds of
the teachers agreed on 15 of these skills, whereas at least 50 percent of
teachers agreed that the remaining thirteen emerging literacy skills should be
developed after kindergarten entrance. Of those skills, 17 are concept of print
skills, 3 are oral language skills, 3 are alphabetic principle skills, 2 are
phonological awareness skills, 2 are phonemic awareness skills, and 1 is a

developmental communication skill.

Question Four

Is there any agreement among kindergarten teachers as to which emerging
literacy skills they believe should be primarily developed during the first grade?

Table 8 presents those emerging literacy skills for which a majority (50% or
more) of kindergarten teachers agreed should be primarily developed during
early first grade.

105

Table 8 .
Emerging Literacy Skills Kindergarten Teachers Believe Should Be Primarily

Develpfl Duripg Ear_ly First Grade (N= 4g)

 

 

 

Emerging
Literacy Skill f %
Identify middle sounds 23 54.8
Recognize common nouns

and verbs typical of daiy life 22 5_2_.4

 

Of the 50 emerging literacy skills listed, over 50 percent of kindergarten
teachers agreed that only 2 of them should be primarily be developed during
early first grade. One of the skills was a phonemic awareness skill and the other

was an oral language skill.

Question Five
Do perceptions of the acquisition of emerging literacy skills vary as a function
of the demographics of kindergarten teachers?
Table 9 gives a Chi-Square summary of the acquisition of emerging literacy
skills as a function of teaching background.

106

Table 9
Chi-Square Summary of Perceptions of the Acquisition of Emerging Literacy
Skills as a Function of Teachipg Background (N= 4;)

 

 

Variable 91‘ X2 P__
Years in education and

Use inventedltemporary spelling 6 12.597 .050
Years in education and

Understand that words are

separated by spaces 6 15.418 .017
Years in education and

Write a sentence 6 14.865 .012
Years teaching preschool and

Identity title of book 4 17.607 .001b

Years teaching preschool and

Understand where to begin reading 2 8.713 .013

Years teaching preschool and
Follow print on page, moving eyes in the
correct direction 4 14.596 .006
Years teaching preschool and
Writes some letters of the alphabet 4 17.607 .0Q1_
Significant experience differences were found regarding how many years in
education and use invented/temporary spelling [X2](6, N=42)= 12.597, p=.050.
Alter kindergarten entrance had a higher than expected count by teachers with 1-
10 years in education and a lower than expected count by teachers with 21-30
years in education. During earty first grade a higher than expected count by
teachers with 21-30 years in education.
Significant experience differences were found regarding years in education

and understand that words are separated by spaces [X2](6, N=42)= 15.418,

p=.017. After kindergarten entrance had a higher than expected count by

107

teachers with 1-10 years in education and 21-30 years in education, and a lower
than expected count by teachers with 11-20 years in education. During early first
grade had a higher than expected count by teachers with 11-20 years in
education.

Significant experience differences were found in terms of years in education
and write a sentence [X2](6, N=42)= 14.865, p=.012. After kindergarten entrance
had a higher than expected count by teachers with 1-10 years in education and a
lower than expected count by teachers with 21-30 years in education. During
early first grade had a higher than expected count by teachers with 21-30 years
in education and a lower than expected count by teachers with 1-10 and 31-40
years in education.

As shown in Table 9, significant differences were found in terms of years
teaching preschool and identify title ofa book [x21(4, N=42)= 17.607, p=.001.
After kindergarten entrance had a lower than expected count by teachers with
11-25 years of preschool teaching. During early first grade had a lower than
expected count by teachers with 1-10 years of preschool teaching experience.

Significant differences were found in terms of years teaching preschool and
understand where to begin reading [X2] (2, N=42)= 8.713, p=.013. Fewer than
expected teachers with no preschool teaching experience said prior to
kindergarten, while more than the expected amount of teachers with 1-10 years
of preschool teaching and kindergarten teachers with 11-25 years of preschool
teaching experience said prior to kindergarten. As could be expected then,
more than the expected number of kindergarten teachers with no preschool

108

teaching experience said after kindergarten entrance and fewer than expected
kindergarten teachers with 11-25 years of preschool teaching experience said
the same.

As seen in Table 9, significant differences were found regarding years
teaching preschool and follow print on page, moving eyes in the correct direction
[x21(4, N=42)= 14.596, p=.006. Prior to kindergarten a higher than expected
count by teachers with 1-10 years of preschool teaching. After kindergarten
entrance had a higher than expected count by teachers with no prescth
teaching experience and a lower than expected count by teachers with 1-10
years of preschool teaching experience.

Significant differences were found regarding years teaching preschool and
writes some letters [x2] (4, N=42)= 17.607, p=.001. Prior to kindergarten had a
lower than expected count by kindergarten teachers with no preschool teaching
experience and a higher than expected count by teachers with 1-10 years and
11-25 years of preschool teaching experience. After kindergarten entrance had a
higher than expected count by kindergarten teachers with no preschool teaching
experience and a lower than expected count by kindergarten teachers with 1-10
and 11-25 years of preschool teaching experience.

Table 10 presents a Chi-square summary of the perceptions of the acquisition
of emerging literacy skills as a function of kindergarten teachers’ education
background.

109

Table 10

Chi-Square Summary of Perceptions of the Acquisition of Emerging Literacy

 

 

Skills as a Function of Education Background (N= 43L
Variable at x2 p
Major area of BA and

Listen attentively to stories 2 13.140 .001
Highest degree earned and

Follow simple directions 2 9.790 .007
Highest degree earned and

Use invented/temporary spelling 4 20.706 .000
Highest degree earned and

Understand that words are separated

by spaces 4 20.588 .000
Highest degree earned and

Develop a concept of punctuation 4 10.161 .038
Highest degree earned and

Write a sentence 4 21.053 .000
Highest degree earned and

Identify middle sounds 2 6.164 .046
Early childhood endorsement and

Retell story details 2 8.251 .016
Early childhood endorsement and

Listen attentively to stories 1 9.882 .002
Early childhood endorsement and

Articulate intents emotions and desires 2 L507 .014

 

 

 

—4—

Three areas of teachers’ education background were significant: major area

of BA, highest degree earned, and early childhood endorsement. Significant

differences were found in regard to major area of BA and listen attentively to

stories, [X2](2, N=42)= 13.140, p=.001. Prior to kindergarten had a higher than

expected count by kindergarten teachers whose major area of study was

elementary education and “other” area, while a lower than expected count by
those kindergarten teachers with an early childhood major was found. After
kindergarten entrance had a higher than expected count by early childhood
majors and a lower than expected count by elementary education and “other”
majors.

Significant differences were found regarding highest degree earned and follow
simple directions [X2](2, N=42)=9.790, p=.007. Prior to kindergarten had a higher
than expected count by kindergarten teachers who had earned a Master’s
degree and a lower than expected count by kindergarten teachers whose highest
degree was a Bachelor’s degree. Alter kindergarten entrance had a higher than
expected count by kindergarten teachers with a Bachelor's degree and a lower
than expected count by kindergarten teachers with a Master’s degree.

One significant difference was found with highest degree and write a sentence
[x2](4, N=42)= 21.053, p= .000. During early first grade had a gmater than
expected count by kindergarten teachers with a Master's degree.

Significant differences were discovered concerning highest degree earned
and identify middle sounds [x2](2, N=42)= 6.164, p=.046. Alter kindergarten
entrance had a greater than expected count by kindergarten teachers with a
Master’s degree and a lower than expected count by kindergarten teachers with
a Bachelor‘s degree. During early first grade had a higher than expected count
by teachers with a Bachelor’s degree and a lower than expected count by

teachers with a Master’s degree.

111

Significant differences were found as regards highest degree eamed and use
invented/temporary spelling [X2](4, N=42)=20.706, p=.000, understand that
words are separated by spaces [x2](4, N=42)=20.588, p=.000, and develop a
concept of punctuation [X2](4, N=42)= 10.161, p=.038. However, no clear pattern
of distribution emerged.

As shown in Table 10, significant differences were found concerning early
childhood endorsement and retell story details [X2](2, N=42)= 8.251, p=.016,
articulate intents, emotions, and desires [X2](2, N=42)=8.507, p=.014, and listen
attentively to stories [X2](2, N=42)=9.882, p=.002. In all of these cases: prior to
kindergarten had higher expected counts by kindergarten teachers who did not
have an early childhood endorsement and lower than expected counts by
kindergarten teachers who did have an early childhood endorsement; alter
kindergarten entrance had higher than expected counts by kindergarten teachers
who did have an early childhood endorsement and lower than expected counts
by those who did not

Table 11 shows a Chi-square summary of perceptions of the acquisition of
emerging literacy skills as a function of kindergarten teachers’ participation in

professional activities.

112

Table 11
Chi-Square Summary of Perceptions of the Acquisition of Emerging Literacy
Skills as a Function of Teacher Partici ation in Professional Activities N= 42

 

 

Variable gr x2 p
Member of NAEYC and

Follow print on page, moving eyes in the

correct direction 2 7.172 .028

Subscribe to professional journals and
Identify middle sounds 1 4.497 .034

Attend professional conferences and
Exhibit reading-like behavior 1 6.353 .012

Conferences attended and
Recognize lower case letters 5 1 1.174 .048

Conferences attended and

Understand the difference between

pictures and print 5 16.490 .006
Hours of professional development and

Rmnize upgr case letters 3 Q8076 p055

Four areas of teacher participation in professional activities were significant:

member of NAEYC, subscribe to professional joumals, attend professional
conferences, and hours of professional development. A significant difference
was found regarding membership in the Nafional Association for the Education of
Young Children (NAEYC) and follow print on page, moving eyes in the correct
direction [X2](2,N=42)=7.172, p=.028. Those teachers who were not NAEYC
members had a higher than expected count in prior to kindergarten, while those
kindergarten teachers who were members of NAEYC had a lower than expected

count.

113

Significant differences were found concerning subscribe to professional
journals and identify middle sounds [x2](1, N=42)=4.497, p=.034. Teachers who
did not subscribe to professional journals had a higher than expected count in
alter kindergarten entrance and a lower than expected count in during early first
grade, while teachers who did subscribe to professional journals had a lower
than expected count in after kindergarten entrance and a higher than expected
count in during early first grade.

Significant differences were found regarding attend professional conferences
and exhibit reading like behavior [X2](1, N42)=6.353, p=.012. Kindergarten
teachers who do not attend professional conferences had a lower than expected
count and those who did attend conferences had a higher than expected count in
prior to kindergarten, whereas the opposite was true in after kindergarten
entrance.

Significant differences were found related to conferences attended and:
recognize lower case letters [x2](5, N=42)=11.174, p=.048. Counts in pridr to
kindergarten were higher than expected in teachers who do not attend
conferences and lower than expected in teachers who attend NAEYC and “other”
conferences. Counts in after kindergarten entrance were higher than expected in
teachers who attend NAEYC and “other” conferences and lower in teachers who
do not attend professional conferences.

Significant differences were also found related to conferences attended and
understand the difference between pictures and print [X2](5, N=42)=16.490,

p=.006. Counts in prior to kindergarten were higher than expected by those who

114

attend NAEYC and MRA conferences and lower than expected by those who do
attend MIAEYC and “other“ conferences, and by those who do not attend
professional conferences. Counts in after kindergarten entrance were lower than
expected by those who attend MRA and NAEYC conferences and higher than
expected by those who attend MIAEYC, “other” conferences, and by those who
do not attend conferences.

In the chi square test, significant differences were found concerning hours of
development and recognize upper case letters [X2])3, N=42)=8.076, p=.044.
Prior to kindergarten counts were higher than expected for teachers with 40—60
hours of professional development last year and lower than expected for
teachers with 61-200 hours of professional development last year. Counts in
after kindergarten enhance were the reverse.

Table 12 shows a Chi-square summary of perceptions of the acquisition of

emerging literacy skills as a function of teachers’ classroom characteristies.

115

Table 12
Chi-Square Summary of Perceptions of the Acquisition of Emerging Literacy
Skills as a Function of Classroom Characteristies (N= 4_2_)

 

Variable or x2 9
Type of program this year and

Distinguish between real and

make—believe 2 6.398 .041
Type of program this year and

Write first name 2 7.547 .023
Type of program this year and

Write last name 4 20.562 .000

Number of students in classroom and
Write first name 1 4.041 .045

Number of students in classroom and
Draw a recognizable picture 1 4.627 .031

Number of students in classroom and

Responds to oral language with
relevant comments and questions 2 6.355 .042

Number of students in classroom and
Retell story details 2 7.657 .022

Number of students in classroom and
Understand that letters are formed in a
specific way and are unchanging 2 7.740 .021

Number of children 5 years old and _
Writes some letters of the alphabet 1 8.210 .004

Number of children 5 years old and
Exhibit reading-like behavior 1 4.268 .039

Number of children 5 years old and
Break words into syllables 1 6.861 .009

116

Table 12 (cont’d).

 

Variable x2 9
Number of children 5 years old and

Recognize own name in writing 9.501 .002
Number of children 6 years old and

Exhibit reading-like behavior 10.000 .002
Number of children 7 years old and

Retell story details 6.536 .038
Percent of students who are

African-American and

Distinguish between real and make-believe 13.223 .004
Percent of students who are Asian and

Understand that letters are formed in a

specific way and are unchanging 14.344 .006
Percent of students who are Asian and

Follow print on page, moving eyes in the

correct direction 15.477 .004”
Percent of students who are Asian and

Identify end sounds 14.962 .005
Percent of students who are Asian and

Identify beginning sounds 10.140 .038
Percent of students who are Hispanic and

Recognize rhyming words 13.980 .030
Percent of students who are Hispanic and

Retell story details 20.941 .002
Percent of students who are Hispanic and

Identify end sounds 14.966 .021
Percent of students who are White and

Recognize Iogographic print 7.842 .049

117

Table 12 (cont'd).

Variable
Percent of students receiving free and
reduced lunch and

Write some letters of the alphabet

Percent of students with childcare
experience and
Write last name

Percent of students with developmental
kindergarten experience and
Write some words

Percent of students with developmental
kindergarten experience and

Engage in conversation with adults with
multiple exchanges

Percent of students with developmental
kindergarten experience and
Recognize common nouns and verbs
typical of everyday life

Percent of students with developmental
kindergarten experience and
Write some words

Percent of students with Head Start
or MSRP experience and
Formulate simple questions

Percent of students with private preschool

experience and
Recognize I0909I’aphic print

Percent of students with private preschool

experience and
Identity middle sounds

118

'9'.

x2

9.406

13.607

1 1.939

8.947

11.505

1 1.939

16.864

1 1.820

7.946

.024

.034

.018

.011

.021

.018

.032

.008

.047

Table 12 (cont’d).

Variable
Percent of students with private preschool
experience and
Understand the difference between letters 6 16.389 .012
and words

'9.
ZS.

L.

Percent of students with no preschool

experience and
MW mmm om (e.g. vehicles) 4 1_2_.977 .011

Thirty-seven significant variables are noted as a function of 16 different

classroom characteristies. As seen in Table 12, significant differences were
discovered regarding the type of program the teacher taught and distinguish
between real and make-believe [X2](2, N=42)=6.398, p=.041, write first name
[X2](2, N=42)=7.547, p=.023, and write last name [X2](4, Na2)=20.562, p=.000.
Distinguish between real and make-believe had a higher than expected count in
prior to kindergarten entrance by teachers who taught a ‘/2 day program as
compared to teacher who taught in an all day, every day program who had a
lower than expected count. Conversely, the counts for alter kindergarten
entrance were lower than expected for teachers in a ‘/2 day program and higher
than expected for teachers in an all day, every day program. Counts for prior to
kindergarten entrance and write first name were higher than expected for
teachers in a ‘A day program and lower than expected by teachers in all day,
every other day programs. The counts for after kindergarten entrance were
lower than expected in the V2 day program and higher than expected in the all

119

day, every other day program. While significance is noted for program type and
write last name, no clear tendency in the distribution of the variable was noted.

Significant differences were found concerning number of students in the
classroom and write first name [X2](1, N=42)=4.014, p=.045. Prior to
kindergarten had a higher than expected count in classrooms with 21-27
students whereas a lower than expected count was found in classrooms with 15-
20 students. The reverse was found for after kindergarten entrance.

The number of students in the classroom was found to be significant
regarding respond to oral language with relevant comments and questions [X2](2,
N=42)=6.355, p=.042. The prior to la’ndergarten count in classrooms with 15-20
students was higher than expected while the count in the 21-27 student
classroom was lower than expected. Again, the opposite counts were found with
the after kindergarten entrance variable.

As shown in Table 12, the number of students in the classroom is significant
in terms of retell story details [X2](2, N=42)=7.657, p=.022. Classrooms with 15-
20 students were significantly overrepresented while classrooms with 21-27
students were significantly underrepresented prior to kindergarten enby. After
kindergarten entrance counts were lower than expected in classrooms with 15—20
students and overrepresented in classrooms with 21-27 students. The counts in
during early first grade were underrepresented for both sizes of classrooms.

Significance was also found for number of students in classroom and
understand that letters are formed in a specific and unchanging way [X2](2,

N=42)=7.740, p=.021. Counts in after kindergarten entrance were higher than

120

expected in classrooms with 15—20 students and lower than expected in
classrooms with 21-27 students. Counts in during early first grade were
significantly lower than expected in classrooms with 15—20 students and
significantly higher in classrooms with 21-27 students.

Significant differences were uncovered for number of children 5-years-old and
write some letters of the alphabet [x2](1, N=42)=8.210, p=.004, exhibit reading-
Iike behavior [X2](1, N=42)=4.286, p=.039, and recognize own name in writing,
[X2](1, N=42)=9.501, p=.002. Prior to kindergarten counts for each variable were
significantly lower than emcted in classrooms with 0-9 students at age 5 and
significantly higher in classrooms with 10—21 students age 5. After kindergarten
entrance counts were the reverse for each. Significant findings for number of
children 5-years-olds and; break words into syllables [X2](1, N=42)=6.861,
p=.009 note that counts for alter kindergarten entrance are significantly lower
than expected in classrooms with 0-9 students age 5 and significantly higher for
classrooms with 10-21 students age 5. Counts for during early first grade were
the opposite. Significant differences were found as regards the number of 6-
year-olds in the classroom and exhibit reading-like behavior [x2](1,
N=40)=10.001, p=.002. Significantly higher counts than expected in prior to
kindergarten were found in classrooms with 0-9 children 6-years-old and
significantly lower than expected in classrooms with 10—23 students 6-years-old.
The counts in after kindergarten entrance were found to be the reverse. One
significant finding was noted for classrooms with children 7-years-old, retell story

details [x2](2, N=41)=6.536, p=.038. The count in alter kindergarten entrance

121

was overrepresented in classrooms where there were no children 7-years-old
and underrepresented in classrooms with 1-5 children who were 7-years-old.
The reverse held true for during early first grade.

As shown in Table 12, significant differences are found in the percentage of
students who are African-American and distinguish between real and make-
believe [X2](3, Na2)=13.223, p=.004. Discrepancies in expected count and
actual count in prior to kindergarten include a higher than expected count in
classrooms where 0—10 percent of students are African-American and lower than
expected counts in classrooms that were 11-25 percent and 26-50 percent
African-American. Conversely, in alter kindergarten entrance there is a
significantly lower expected count in classrooms that were 0—10 percent African-
American and significantly higher counts in classrooms that were 11-25 and 26—
50 percent African-American.

Chi-square testing uncovered significant differences in percent of students
who are Asian and identify end sounds [X2](4, N=42)=14.962, p=.005. The alter
kindergarten entrance count for classrooms with 0-10 percent of students“... , .
are Asian was higher than expected while there was also a higher than expected
count during first grade in classrooms with 11-25 percent of students who are
Asian. Significant findings were also seen regarding percent of students who are
Asian and follow print on page, moving eyes in the correct direction [X2](4,
N=42)=15.477, p=.004. Counts were found to be higher than expected in alter
kindergarten entrance in classrooms with 0-10 percent of students who are
Asian. Prior to kindergarten entrance had lower than expected counts in

122

classrooms with 0-10 and higher than expected counts in classrooms with 11-25
percent of students who are Asian. Two other significant findings regarding
percent of students who are Asian, identify beginning sounds [X2](4,
N=42)=10.140, p=.038 and understand that letters are formed in a specific and
unchanging way [X2](4, N=42)=14.344, p=.006, gave no obvious tendency of
distribution.

Significant differences were found in classrooms wifl'l Hispanic students and
identify and sounds [x21(4, N=42)=14.966, p=.021. The count in prior to
kindergarten in classrooms with 0-10 percent Hispanic students was lower than
expected. Alter kindergarten entrance had a lower than expected in count in
classrooms with 11-25 percent of students who are Hispanic. During early first
grade found a higher than expected count in classrooms with 0-10 percent of
students who are Hispanic. Two other variables, retell story details [X2](6,
N=42)=20.941, p=.002 and recognize rhyming words [X2](6, N=42)=13.980,
p=.030, while significant showed no evident tendency in the distribution.

The study analyses showed a significance in the percent of students who are
White and recognize Iogographic print [x2](3, N=42)=7.842, p=.049. Prior to
kindergarten had higher than expected counts in classrooms with 0-10, 11-25,
and 26-50 percent of students who are White. A lower than expected count was
found in classrooms with more than 50 percent of students who are White. Alter
la'ndergarten entrance had lower than expected counts in 0-10, 11-25, and 26-50
percent of students who are White, and a higher than expected count in
classrooms with more than 50 percent of students who are White.

123

Significant differences were found in the percent of students receiving
free/reduced lunch and write some letters of the alphabet [x2](3, N=42)=9.406,
p=.024. Priortc kindergarten had higher than expected counts in classrooms
with 26—50 and more than 50 percent of students receiving free/reduced lunch,
and lower than expected counts in classrooms with 0—10 and 11-25 percent of
students receiving freelmduced lunch. Alter kindergarten entrance had inverse
findings.

Significant differences were uncovered in relation to students and program
experiences before kindergarten entry. The skill, write last name [X2](6,
N=41)=13.607, p=.034) showed higher than expected counts by teachers who
had 51-75 percent of students with childcare experience. There appeared to be
significant differences in perspective for teachers with children who had
developmental kindergarten experience and engage in conversation with adults
with multiple exchanges [x2](2, N=42)=8.947, p=.011). Teachers with no children
coming from developmental kindergarten had a higher than expected count in
prior to kindergarten. Teachers with 1-25 percent of students with developmental
kindergarten experience had a higher than expected count in alter kindergarten
entrance. Significant differences were noted for teachers with students with
developmental kindergarten experience and recognize common nouns and verbs
typical of daily life [X2](4, N=42)=11.505, p=.021). Teachers with 1-25 percent of
students with developmental kindergarten experience showed a higher than
expected count in prior to kindergarten and a lower than expected count in alter
kindergarten entrance and during early first grade. Teachers with students who

124

had no students with developmental kindergarten experience had lower than
expected counts in prior to kindergarten and alter kindergarten entrance and a
higher than expected count in during early first grade. Teacher with 26-50
percent of students with developmental kindergarten experience had a higher
than expected count in during early first grade. Teacher perceptions were found
to be significant in regard to the concept of print skill, write some words [X2](4,
N=42)=11.939, p=.018), however no clear tendency of distribution is noted.

A significant teacher perspective differences was found regarding the percent
of students with Head Start or Michigan School Readiness Program (MSRP)
experience and formulate simple questions [X2](8, N=42)=16.864, p=.032).
Teacher with no students experiencing Head Start or MSRP programs had a
higher than expected count in prior to kindergarten and a lower than expected
count in alter kindergarten entrance. Teachers with 1-25 percent of students with
Head Start or MSRP program experience had a higher expected count in after
kindergarten entrance and a lower than expected count in prior to kindergarten.

A significant difference was found concerning teaches who had students with
private preschool experience and recognize Iogographic print
[X2](3,N=42)=11.820, p=.008). Teachers with no children having private
preschool experience had a higher than expected count in prior to kindergarten
and a lower than expected count in alter kindergarten entrance. Teachers with
26-50 percent of students with private preschool experience showed a higher
than expected count in alter kindergarten entrance and a lower that expected
count in prior to la'ndergarten. Those teachers with 51-75 percent of students

125

with private preschool experience had a higher than expected count in alter
kindergarten entrance and a lower than expected count in prior to kindergarten.
A similar pattern is found for teacher perceptions with students who had private
preschool experience and identify middle sounds [x2](3, N=42)=7.946, p=.047).
Kindergarten teachers who had no children with private preschool experience
had a higher than expected count in alter kindergarten entrance and a lower than
expected count in during early first grade. Teachers with from 1-75 percent of
students who had private preschool experience had higher than expected counts
in during early first grade and lower than expected counts in after kindergarten
entrance. Another point of significance for kindergarten teacher perceptions
when looking at the percent of students with private preschool experience is
understand the dilterence between letters and words [X2](6, N=42)=16.389,
p=.012. Teachers who had no children with private preschool experience had a
higher than expected count in alter kindergarten entrance and a lower than
expected count in prior to kindergarten. Teachers with 51-75 percent of children
with private preschool experience had a higher than expected count in prior to
kindergarten and a lower than expected count in alter kindergarten entrance. A
significant difference in teacher perceptions regarding the percent of students
with no preschool experience and identify common objects [x2](4, N=42)=12.977,
p=.011) was found. Teachers with students who had either no preschool
experience or teachers with 1-25 percent of students with no preschool
experience had higher than expected counts in prior to kindergarten and lower
than expected counts in alter kindergarten entrance. Teachers with 26-50 and

126

51-75 percent of students with no preschool experience had higher than
expected counts in after kindergarten entrance and lower than expected counts

in prior to kindergarten.

uestion Six

What sources influence kindergarten teachers’ expectations of children's
literacy readiness for kindergarten?

Table 13 shows the sources of influence, the frequency and percent of
agreement for each degree of influence, as well as, in descending order, the
mean score for each source as to the degree of influence it has on teacher
expectations (where, 1= not at all influential, 3= somewhat influential, and 5=

very influential).

127

Table 13

Influential Sources on Kindergarten Teacher Expectations of Children’s Literacy

Readiness (N= 42)

 

Source f % m
Past teaching experience 4.40 .86
2 1 2.4
3 7 16.7
4 8 19.0
5 26 61.9
Professional conferences 4.29 .86
1 1 2.4
2 1 2.4
3 2 4.8
4 19 45.2
5 19 45.2
School district curriculum 4.17 .91
2 1 2.4
3 1 1 26.2
4 10 23.8
5 20 47.6
State curriculum framework 4.02 .78
3 12 28.6
4 17 40.5
5 13 31.0
Other kindergarten teachers 4.00 .99
1 1 2.4
2 1 2.4
3 1 1 26.2
4 13 31.0
5 16 38.1
ln-service training 4.00 .86
2 2 4.8
3 9 21.4
4 18 42.9
5 13 31.0
Expectations of first grade teachers 3.60 .96
1 1 2.4
2 4 9.5
3 13 31.0
4 17 40.5
5 7 16.7

128

SD

Table 13 (cont’d).

 

 

Source f % in SD
Assessment used by the district 3.33 1.26
1 5 11.9
2 5 11.9
3 11 26.2
4 13 31.0
5 8 19.0
Professional journals 3.31 1.22
1 7 16.7
3 13 31.0
4 17 40.5
5 5 11.9
Federal legislation 3.05 1.41
1 8 19.0
2 7 16.7
3 11 26.2
4 7 16.7
5 9 21.4
How I was taught as a child 2.21 1.30
1 17 40.5
2 10 23.8
3 7 16.7
4 5 11.9
5 3 7.1
Local school board 2.21 1.22
1 17 40.5
2 7 16.7
3 12 28.6
4 4 9.5
5 2 4.8
Media sources 1.76 2.00
1 20 47.6
2 14 33.3
3 7 16.7
5 1 2.4

 

Of the 13 possible sources of influence, kindergarten teachers indicated 10 of

them are somewhat influential to very influential. The most influential source

indicated was past teaching experience with about 62 percent of teachers

129

agreeing that it was very influential (5, m= 4.40) on their expectations of
children’s literacy readiness. Media sources was the least influential with about
48 percent of teachers agreeing that they are not influential at all (1, m= 1.76).
While the data did not reflect any other points of majority agreement, teachers
indicated that they were also quite influenced by professional conferences
(m= 4.29), school district cuniculum (4.17), the state curriculum framework
(4.02), other kindergarten teachers (4.00), and in-service training (4.00).
Interestingly, teachers were strongly divided in their reports of the influence of
federal legislation as about 36% of teachers said that federal legislation is not at
all influential on their expectations. In contrast, 38% of teachers indicated that
federal legislation was very influential on their expectations (m= 3.05). About 41
percent of teachers said that the local school board was not at all influential,
whereas about 30 percent noted that it is somewhat influential.

Table 14 gives a Chi-square summary of the most influential sources of
kindergarten teachers’ expectations of children’s literacy readiness for
kindergarten. Emerging literacy skills were grouped by type: oral language,
concept of print, phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, alphabetic
principle, and developmental communication. Scores of respondents were then
added and assigned an overall score for analysis. Only significant results at the
5% and 1% level are presented.

130

Table 14
Chi-Square Summary of The Most Influential Sources of Kindergarten Teachers’

Whom of Children’s Literag Readiness for Kindergarten (N= 42)

 

Variable it x2 9
Past teaching experiences .

Concept of print skills 51 71.360 .031
Past teaching experience

Phonolggical awareness skills 9 43.675 .000

 

Past teaching experience was found to be the only influential source of
teacher expectations that was significant. While significance was found
regarding concept of print differences [x2](51, N=42)=71.360, p=.031 and
phonological awareness [x21(9, N=42)=43.675, p=.ooo and past teaching

experience, no obvious distribution tendency was found.

9mm

Are kindergarten teachers’ beliefs congruent with others’ beliefs regarding
children’s literacy capabilities?

Table 15 notes the degree to which teachers think that their beliefs about
children’s literacy capabilities are congruent with preschool teachers’
expectations, other kindergarten teachers’ expectations, first grade teachers’
expectations, parents’ expectations, standards set by flleir school district, the
state curriculum framework, and the standards set by Federal legislation (where,
1= not at all congruent, 3= somewhat congruent, and 5= highly congruent; non-
marked values were left off). This table also indicates the mean score for each

variable.

131

Table 15

Congmency of Kindergarten Teacher Beliefs of Children’s Literacy Readiness

 

 

with Others (N=41)
Source f % m §l_I_)_
Other kindergarten teachers 4.12 .95
1 1 2.4
2 1 2.4
3 7 17.1
4 15 36.6
5 17 41.5
First grade teachers 3.90 .77
2 1 2.4
3 1 1 26.8
4 20 48.8
5 9 21.4
Standards set by my school district 3.85 .88
2 2 4.9
3 13 31.7
4 15 36.6
5 1 1 26.8
State curriculum framework 3.80 .98
2 4 9.8
3 12 29.3
4 13 31.7
5 12 29.3
Parents’ expectation 3.51 .87
1 1 2.4
2 3 7.3
3 15 36.6
4 18 43.9
5 5 9.8
Standards set by Federal legislation* 3.41 1.00
1 1 9.5
2 6 14.3
3 15 36.6
4 13 31 .7
5 6 14.6
Preschool teacher expectations 3.39 .95
1 1 2.4
2 6 14.6
3 14 34.1
4 16 39.0
5 4 9.8

 

*Standards may be based on previous set of expectationskor No Child Left

Behind Standards of 2000.

132

Kindergarten teachers indicated that they think that their beliefs about
children’s literacy capabilities are most congruent with other kindergarten
teachers and least congruent with preschool teachers.

Notably, there was no majority of agreement regarding the degree of
congruency for any of the choices among kindergarten teachers. However,
about 77 percent of teachers did indicate that they thought their beliefs were
congruent (4) to highly congruent (5) with first grade teachers. More than half of
all kindergarten teachers said that their beliefs are congruent (4) to highly
congruent (5) with standards set by my school district (63.4%), state curriculum
framework (61%), and parent expectations (53.7%).

Table 16 shows a Chi-square summary of kindergarten teachers’ expectations
and their perceptions of the expectations of others. Emerging literacy skills were
grouped by type: oral language, concept of print, phonological awareness,
phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, and developmental communication.
Scores of respondents were then added and assigned an overall score for

analysis. Only significant results at the 5% and 1% level are presented.

133

Table 16
Chi-Square Summary of Kindergarten Teachers’ Expectations and Their
Perceived ExmtionsLofj Others (N= 42)

 

Variable or x2 9
Standards set by my school district
Oral laggugge skills 412 62.830 .020

 

 

Significant differences were only found in regard to oral language differences
and standards set by my scth district [X2](42, N=41)=62.830. There was no

distribution tendency noted.

Question Eight
Which literacy skills do kindergarten teachers believe are the five most

essential skills children should acquire by kindergarten entry?
Table 17 indicates those skills kindergarten teachers believed to be top five
emerging literacy skills children should have upon kindergarten entry. The skills

are listed in descending order. There were 197 hits out of a possible 250.

134

Table 17

Most Important Emerging Literacy Skills Children Should Have Upon

Kimggten Entrv (N= 42) (Total count= 197)

 

I_.'rt_e_r§_c3LSki_ll f % of mismnses
Follow simple directions 20 10.2
Listen attentively to stories 18 9.1
Repeat songs, fingerplays, and

movement activities 18 9.1
Exhibit reading4ike behavior 12 6.1
Identify letters of the alphabet 12 6.1
Engage in conversations with peers/adults 11 5.6
Draw a recognizable picture 10 5.1
Write first name 9 4.6
Pretend to read a book by telling a story

from the pictures 9 4.6
Speak clearly enough to be understood

by others 8 4.1
Recognize own name in writing 8 4.1
Recognize lower case letters 8 4.1
Articulate intents, emotions, and desires 6 3.0
Identify common objects 6 3.0
Understand that print contains a message 5 2.5
Use descriptive language 5 2.5
Recognize Iogographic print 4 2.0
Use appropriate expressive vocabulary 4 2.0
Retell story details 4 2.0

135

Table 17 (cont’d).

 

' Skill f % of re_spgnses
Recognize upper case letters 3 1.5
Write some letters of the alphabet 3 1.5
Pretend to read a book 2 1.0
Distinguish between real and make-believe 2 1.0
Read others’ facial/body expressions 2 1.0
Recognize rhyming words 2 1.0
Respond to oral language with relevant

comments and questions 2 1.0
Follow print on the page, moving eyes in

the correct direction 2 1.0
Understand the difference between pictures

and print 1 0.5
Use inventedltemmragy sgIIing 1 0.5

 

The majority of teachers did not agree on the top five emerging literacy skills

children should have upon kindergarten entry. The highest percentage of

teachers indicated fllat follow simple directions (10.2%) was the most important

emerging literacy skill children should have upon kindergarten entry. This was

followed by listen attentively to stories (9.1%). The emerging literacy skills

indicated by the teachers were mostly oral language and concept of print skills.

136

Question Nine

Are kindergarten teacher expectations of emerging literacy skills to be
developed during the kindergarten year congruent with the State of Michigan
Framework of Skills in the kindergarten year?

The percentage of teacher agreement with the Michigan Curriculum
Framework: Kindergarten Expectations (These standards are based on the
Kindergarten English Language Arts Grade Level Content Expectations found in
the Michigan Curricular Framework, Michigan Department of Education, 2004) is

presented in Table 18 in descending order.

137

Table 18

Teacher Agreement With the Michigan Curriculum Framework:

mm (N= 42)
Framework Mflm

Write some words
Understand the difference between
letters and words
Associate letter names with their sounds
Understand that words are separated
by spaces
Identify beginning sounds
Write last name
Develop a sight vocabulary
Use invented/temporary spelling
Understand where to begin reading
Follow the print on a page moving eyes
in the right direction
Match spoken words with written ones
Understand that letters are formed in a specific way
and are unchanging
Write a sentence
Retell story details
Recognize lower case letters
Retell a familiar story
Identify end sounds
Develop a concept of punctuation
Understand that print contains a message
Recognize upper case letters
Choose literary experiences when given a choice
Respond to oral language with relevant comments
and questions
Use descriptive language
Articulate intents, emotions, and desires
Use appropriate expressive language
Engage in conversation with peers with
multiple exchanges
Listen attentively to stories
Speak clearly enough to be understood by others
Engage in conversation with adults with
multiple exchanges
Follow simple directions

138

% of teacher ggreement

92.9

92.9
90.5

90.5
88.1
85.7
85.7
83.3
83.3

81.0
78.6

78.6
73.8
73.8
73.8
69.0
69.0
66.7
64.3
64.3
50.0

45.2
40.5
35.7
28.6

28.6
19.0
14.3

7.1
7.1

Teachers agree that the majority of emerging literacy skills in the Michigan
Curriculum Framework: Kindergarten Expectations should be developed in
kindergarten. However, there are nine skills that less than 50 percent of teachers
agreed should be developed in kindergarten. As was seen earlier, teachers
indicated that they believe these skills should be developed prior to kindergarten
entry.

Additional Findiggs

A majority of kindergarten teachers (78.6%) in this sample believed that boys
and girls have equal emerging literacy skills. Of those who did not think this was
true, about 24 percent thought that girls’ emerging literacy skill development
surpassed boys’ and about 2 percent of teachers believed boys’ literacy skill
development surpassed girls’.

Another finding of this study is that the majority of kindergarten teachers
(90.5%) have had no contact with childcare programs, developmental
kindergarten programs (73.8%), or private preschool programs (83.3%). Many
have, however, been in contact with Head Start or MSRP programs (52.4%). In
a related finding, the majority of kindergarten teachers reported that they never
asked for student portfolios and, as expected, reported that they did not receive
them from the majority of programs. According to these kindergarten teachers,
45 percent of Head Start or MSRP programs sent portfolios, about 17 percent of
developmental kindergarten programs sent portfolios, about 10 percent of private
preschools sent portfolios, and no childcare program sent a portfolio to teachers
whether they asked or not.

139

 

Summag

In this section, the results were presented according to each question. The
research questions in this study examined the beliefs of kindergarten teachers in
regard to when they thought certain emerging literacy skills should be developed
in young children. As a result of the analysis, it appears that kindergarten
teachers agree on the timing of development as regards many of the emerging
literacy skills, however teachers may not have a complete understanding of the
continuum of literacy development. The next chapter discusses the results of the
study, as well as implications for classroom practice, implications for in-service

and preservice teaching, and implications for research.

140

 

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION

This study investigated kindergarten teachers’ perceptions about when young
children should best acquire emerging literacy skills. Teachers were asked to
base their answers on when 75-80 percent of children are likely to develop each
emerging literacy skill. Four underlying principles guided this study: a) emerging
literacy skills are developed on a continuum over time (Neuman, Copple, 8r
Bredekamp, 2000); b) explicit abilities necessary for reading and writing develop
from direct encounters with both oral and written language (Sulzby & Teale,
1991); c) certain emerging literacy skills must be taught explicitly (Soderman,
Gregory, & McCarty, 2005); and d) children’s literacy development is influenced
by the literacy characteristics and expectations of those persons present and
involved in the child’s immediate environment such as parents, childcare
provider, preschool teacher, or kindergarten teacher who in turn are influenced
by community, societal, and cultural factors (Bronfenbrenner, 1998).

Discussion in this chapter centers on the three major sets of findings in this
study: foundational skill recognition by kindergarten teachers; patterns of
expectation of emerging literacy beliefs; and some additional factors investigated
for teacher perspectives. Also considered in this chapter are the findings in
relation to ecological perspectives. The chapter is concluded with implications
for classroom practice, implications for in-service and preservice teaching,

implications for future research, and the summary.

141

mm

The process of becoming literate begins well before children enter formal
schooling. Children do not become “real” readers until they have gained
functional knowledge of the individual parts and pieces of literacy. These early
skills, or foundational skills, include: language skills such as the ability to follow
simple directions, repeat songs and fingerplays, follow movement activities, use
appropriate expressive language; concept of print skills such as the ability to
draw a recognizable picture, pretend to read a book, understand the difference
between pictures and print, and understand that print carries a message;
alphabetic skills such as the ability to identify letters of the alphabet and
understand that letters are formed in a specific way and are unchanging; and
phonological awareness skills, such as an ability to recognize rhyming words.
The acquisition of these foundational skills falls in the emerging phase of the
developmental continuum (Neuman, Copple, & Bredekamp, 2000; Soderman,
Gregory, & McCarty, 2005) (see Figure 4).

By indicating that 75-80 percent of children are likely to enter kindergarten
with certain foundational oral language skills, the kindergarten teachers in this
study showed an understanding that language is a crucial element in the
development of emerging literacy (Hart & Risley, 1995). For example, over 90
percent of teachers indicated that children should be able to follow simple
directions, about 83 percent said children should be able to repeat songs,
fingerplays, and movement activities, and about 57 percent noted children should

be able to use appropriate expressive language prior to kindergarten entry.

142

 

Teachers also indicated an understanding of the importance of drawing in the
emerging literacy process as about 63 percent of teachers thought children
should be able to draw a recognizable picture prior to kindergarten entry.
However, kindergarten teachers in this sample appeared to have an incomplete
understanding of which emerging literacy skills are foundational and the
approximate timing of their development as explained below.
Phonolggical Awareness

About 83 percent of kindergarten teachers indicated they thought recognize
rhyming words is a skill that should be developed after kindergarten entrance.
Rhyming is a phonological skill that should be developed prior to kindergarten
entry by way of nursery rhymes, rhyming games, poetry, and so on. Teachers
may not understand that rhyming is a root of phonological awareness and must
be developed as a basis for the development of more abstract phonological
Wge and emerging reading skills (Anthony, Lonigan, 8 Dliscoll, 2003:
MacLean, Bryant, & Bradley, 1987). The Committee on the Prevention of
Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) specifically
recommends that home and preschool activities include songs, poems, and
games that focus on rhyming.
Comt of Print

In another finding, about 60 percent of teachers noted that understanding the
difference between pictures and print is a skill to be developed after kindergarten
entrance, and 64 percent of teachers believed that Ieaming that print contains a

message is a skill to be developed after kindergarten entrance. In contrast,

143

Christie et al. (1997) found that recognizing the difference between pictures and
print, as well as the awareness that print has meaning are two of the initial
discoveries that many children as young as three make about written language.
Shared book reading from a very early age encourages verbal interaction that not
only builds vocabulary, but also develops these types of concept of print skills.
Alphabet

Children’s alphabet knowledge upon school entry is one of the single
strongest predictors of both short— and long-tenn literacy achievement (Adams,
1990; Stevenson & Newman, 1986). However, before children learn to identify
letters of the alphabet, they must understand that letters are formed in a specific
way and are unchanging. Yet, almost 79 percent of kindergarten teachers in this
study indicated that this was a skill they believed should be developed after
kindergarten entry. It is possible that teachers misunderstood the item, as more
teachers reported that they should teach children that letters don’t change form
than teach children to identify letters of the alphabet.

Teachers in this study were asked to list the five most essential skills children
should have developed prior to kindergarten entry. While it should be
acknowledged that this was a difficult task, as there were numerous emerging
skills to choose from, and so many of these skills are very important, it must also
be noted that several of the foundational skills were missing from the compiled
list. Absent from the top ten most commonly listed skills were foundational skills
such as recognize rhyming words, understand that letters are formed in a specific
and unchanging way, and understand the difference between print and pictures.

144

It should also be noted that the frequency of response for certain other
foundational skills was very low. For example, only one percent of teachers said
that pretend to read a book was one of the most important literacy skills children
should have upon kindergarten entry. The low frequency of response for this and
other skills may be due to the fact that there were so many skills to choose from

and the obvious diversity in teacher thinking.

Patterns of EMtions

Analyses of the data uncovered several patterns of expectations of emerging
literacy beliefs. In this study, teaching background, education background, and
certain classroom characteristics were related to teacher perceptions of the
development of emerging literacy skills.
Teachigg Background

One pattern noted pertains to differences in kindergarten teacher background
in education and emerging literacy beliefs. For example, teachers with less than
ten years of teaching experience had higher expectations for the development of
certain concept of print skills as compared to teachers with 21 or more years in
education. The data revealed that veteran teachers in this study thought that
such skills as understand that words are separated by spaces and write a
sentence should be developed in first grade, whereas the less experienced
teachers said these skills should be developed after kindergarten entry. It may
be that teachers’ views vary depending upon the particular cuniculum supplied
by the school (Snow, et al., 1998) or simply their past experience.

145

The data in this study also uncovered the fact that kindergarten teachers with
1-25 years of preschool teaching experience reported holding higher
expectations regarding the development of certain concept of print skills as
compared to those kindergarten teachers with no preschool teaching experience.
For instance, it was reported that kindergarten teachers with preschool teaching
experience expected skills such as understand where to begin reading, write
some letters, and follow the print on a page, moving the eyes in the correct
direction to be developed prior to kindergarten entry. In contrast, kindergarten
teachers with no preschool teaching experience expect these same skills to be
developed after kindergarten entry. This may indicate that kindergarten teachers
who have taught in preschool hold higher expectations for young children, as
compared to kindergarten teachers who have never taught preschool, perhaps
as a result of working with preschool children and observing the development of
these skills at the preschool level.

Education Background

Another pattern found in the data pertained to kindergarten teachers with
early childhood training. Specifically, those teachers with early childhood training
(e.g. early childhood major, early childhood endorsement), were more likely to
expect certain oral language skills to be developed later. Kindergarten teachers
who had a background in early childhood were more likely to say that the oral
language skills retell story details, articulate intents, emotions, and desires, and
listen attentively to stories should be developed after kindergarten entry, whereas
those teachers without an early childhood background were more likely to say

146

that these skills should be developed prior to kindergarten. The discrepancy may
be due to teachers having a different understanding of the degree of difficulty of
the skill. Some teachers may have perceived listen “attentively” to be a
somewhat similar skill as “listen,” whereas teachers with an early childhood
background may see listen “attentively” as being a more concentrated type of
listening than “listen.” Notably, Snow, Burns, 8 Griffin (1998) specify that three-
year-old children should be able to listen to stories while kindergartners should
be able to listen attentively to books.

A somewhat similar pattern was found regarding kindergarten teachers who
participate in professional activities and those who do not For example, those
teachers who were members of the National Association for the Education of
Young Children (NAEYC), attended NAEYC or other conferences, and
subscribed to professional journals indicated they were more likely to believe
children should develop the ability to follow print on a page, move eyes in the
correct direction, identify middle sounds, and recognize lower case letters later
than those teachers who were not members or subscribers. For example, those
teachers who attended professional conferences were more likely to say that
recognize lower case letters is a skill that should be developed after kindergarten
enhance as compared to those who did not attend conferences, who indicated
this skill should be developed prior to kindergarten entry. It should be noted that
the majority of teachers in this study (71.4%) attend conferences, and a large
majority of those who attend (90.4%) say that professional conferences are an

influential or highly influential source of their expectations for children’s emerging

147

literacy. It appears from this study that teachers who attend conferences and/or
belong to professional organizations have different understandings of how
children’s emerging literacy skills should be appropriately supported than those
who do not.
Classroom Characteristics

A few classroom characteristics were noted as being associated with certain
patterns of teacher perceptions. For instance, teachers who taught in a half-day
program had higher expectations for the development of certain concept of print

skills as compared to those teachers who taught in all day, every day programs.

 

Teachers in the all day, every day programs were more likely to expect such
skills as distinguish between real and make-believe and write first name to be
developed after kindergarten entry, whereas the teachers in the half-day
programs were more likely to say these skills should be developed prior to
kindergarten entry. it is important to keep in mind that the all day, every day
programs in this study were mainly from urban areas, so it could be that, rather
than the length of day, that explains the discrepancy in perceptions.

Another classroom characteristic of some significance in this study is class
size. Class size has recently been at the forefront of the list of possible solutions
to closing the literacy-Ieaming gap between groups of diverse children. In this
study, the number of students in the classroom affected teachers” perspectives
on the development of certain oral language and concept of print skills.
Kindergarten teachers with smaller class sizes (15-20 students) were more likely

to say that certain oral language and concept of print skills should be developed

148

 

sooner than teachers with larger class sizes (21-27 students). A steady decline
in the average number of students in elementary school classrooms is seen
nationally; however, the average number of students in poor urban classrooms is
still above those of any other type (NCES, 2002). According to Snow et al.
(1998), though, the effects of reduced class size are mixed. Several studies
have found that a reduction in class size did not necessarily result in increased
sustained reading achievement effects. Perhaps the differences found here are
not necessarily strictly from a class size variation. There may be other,
unidentified factors related to teachers with different class sizes that influence
teacher perspectives.

This study found differences in teacher perceptions of the development of
emerging literacy skills as a function of children’s prior program experience. For
instance, kindergarten teachers who thought that none of their students had prior
private preschool experience were more likely to say that children should develop
the emerging literacy skills recognize Iogographic print and identify common
objects prior to kindergarten, whereas those kindergarten teachers who said they
had at least 25 percent or more students who attended a private preschool
indicated these skills should be developed after kindergarten entrance. Teachers
having children with no private prescth experience indicated that the skill
identify middle sounds should be developed after kindergarten entry, as opposed
to those teachers with 1-75 percent of students with private preschool experience
who said that was a skills that should be developed during early first grade.

Teachers may have varied expectations for students with different program

149

 

experiences because they are unaware of the experiences that children have
during those programs. Kindergarten teachers with little or no communication
with children’s preschool programs probably do not know what curricula are
offered. In this study, 83 percent of kindergarten teachers indicated they had no

contact with any private preschools.

Additional Factors Investlg' ated for Teacher Perspeity' es

Additional factors investigated in this study proving to have some agreement
among kindergarten teachers are: sources of teacher influence on expectations
of children’s literacy readiness, congruency of kindergarten teacher beliefs of
children’s literacy readiness with others, congruency of kindergarten teacher
beliefs with their school district standards and demands, and the Michigan
Curriculum Framework of kindergarten expectations.

Influences on Teacher's tions

Teachers reported that there are many fairly influential sources for
kindergarten teachers’ expectations of children’s literacy readiness. However,
only one source, past teaching experience, was indicated by a majority of
teachers as a very influential source. Research has indicated that as teachers
become more experienced, they tend to use, among oflrer things, what has
worked in the past, accordingly building a belief system for making classroom
decisions (Stephens 8 Clyde, 1995).

Attendance at professional conferences was the second most commonly
reported influence on teachers’ expectations of children’s literacy skills. About 71

percent of kindergarten teachers in this study attended conferences. Therefore,

150

this may be an important finding with implications for delivering educative
information to teachers. In a similar vein, teachers indicated that in-service
training was a fairly influential source for their expectations, as well. Again, if
teachers are using these modes of information delivery as influential sources,
more attention should be paid to the quality and quantity of information that is
delivered to teachers. These are two obviously powerful methods of conveying
what teachers need for professional development around literacy expectations.
Teachers also indicated that the (Michigan) state curriculum framework, as

a source of expectations of children’s literacy development, was fairly influential.
In addition, teachers identified Federal legislation as a somewhat influential
source for kindergarten teachers’ expectations of children’s literacy readiness.
This may not be the case in the future as the impact of the NCLB Act is felt more
deem)!-
Co_rlgrueppy of Beliefs Rpggrdipg Children’s LEM Capabilities

This study also looked at congruency of teacher beliefs regarding children’s
literacy capabilities as compamd to others’ beliefs. The data found that these
particular kindergarten teachers supposed their beliefs to be mostly congruent
with other kindergarten teachers’ beliefs about children’s literacy capabilities.
The data indicated that teachers thought their beliefs were somewhat congruent
with first grade teachers’ beliefs, standards set by the school district, the state
curriculum framework, parents’ beliefs, standards set by Federal legislation, and

preschool teachers’ beliefs about children’s literacy capabilities.

151

Notably, kindergarten teachers said their beliefs about children’s literacy
capabilities were somewhat congruent with parents’ expectations. Much current
literature has shown that there exist discontinuities of literacy practices and
expectations among different social and cultural groups, as well as between
home and school (e.g., Au 8 Manson, 1981; Delgado-Gaitan 8 Trueba, 1997;
Heath, 1983; Paratore, Melzi, 8 Krol-Sinclair, 1999; Philips, 1983; Schmidt, 1998;
Volk; 1997; Xu, 1999). Teachers are not necessarily knowledgeable about
differences in family literacy practices, often presuming the practices in middle-
class homes to be the norm. Teachers in this study indicated that their beliefs
are in somewhat of an agreement with parents, perhaps acknowledging some
discontinuity does exist between teachers and parents.

Mm of Beliefs with Local School District

About 63 percent of teachers indicated that their beliefs about children’s
literacy capabilities were congruent to highly congruent with the standards set by
the school district. Eighty percent or more of teachers indicated that their beliefs
regarding 21 out of the 28 emerging literacy skills they are responsible for
teaching were consistent with district demand. Note that these two questions ask
different things of teachers—in one case about congruence of their beliefs as a
whole and in the other case congruence of beliefs on individual skills. We can
generalize across the two that for many teachers there is continuity on many or

all items, but for some teachers, and some items, discontinuity exists.

152

 

Michigan Curriculum Framework of Mflom

Kindergarten teacher beliefs were compared regarding when emerging
literacy skills should be developed against the Michigan Curriculum Framework:
Kindergarten Expectations (Michigan Department of Education, 2004). It is
important to note that these expectations had come out shortly before this survey
was administered. The kindergarten teachers in this sample agreed with the
state expectations on 21 out of the 30 skills—that they should be developed after
kindergarten entrance. The majority of these skills are concept of print skills.
The eight skills for which the teachers did not agree with the state expectations
are mostly oral language skills with teachers expecting these skills to be
developed before kindergarten entry. However, it is important for teachers to
understand that they must continue to support oral language skill development.
Some children come to kindergarten well behind in oral language skills (Hart 8
Risley, 1995). Where kindergarten teachers in this study indicated the majority of
skills they were responsible for teaching are concept of print skills, may must also
continue to support oral language skill development.

W
The person—process-context design of this study guided an investigation of
contextual and personal characteristics that might possibly influence kindergarten
teacher beliefs about emerging literacy (Bronfenbrenner, 1998). The
kindergarten teachers in this study reported that aspects of the microsystem such
as past experience, education background, and teaching background; aspects of

the mesosystem such as in-service training and certain classroom

153

 

characteristics; aspects of the exosystem, such as professional conferences and
state standards; and aspects of the macrosystem such as federal legislation

were influential in forming their emerging literacy beliefs (see Figure 2). From an
ecological viewpoint, this study substantiated that different ecological niches can

be influential in teacher perspectives regarding emerging literacy skills.

Implications for Classroom Practice

This section includes several suggestions for classroom and teacher support

to enhance young children’s literacy Ieaming.

1. While this study showed that teachers in general did not ask for, nor
receive, portfolios, they are a method of authentic assessment that would
give kindergarten teachers insight as to where children’s literacy
development falls on the continuum even before school starts in the fall.
By communicating with preschool, and even childcare programs that feed
into the school district, the goal of expecting and receiving portfolios for
children could be ananged. Kindergarten teachers would then be able to
further plan for the developmental levels of the incoming students.
However, teachers must also be trained in creating and using portfolios as
a means of Ieaming about children and their developmental levels.

2. Communication across kindergarten classrooms, and also with first grade
classrooms, concerning constancy of expectations for students would aid
in continuing teacher perspectives along the same path. Kindergarten
teachers must have time to meet, not only among themselves but with

preschool and first grade teachers as well, and not only as a group in a

154

 

 

school, but also as a group within the district. Of course, meetings should

be focused on research-based expectations of literacy development.

Implications for lrl-JService and Preservice Education

As a result of this study, it can be noted that kindergarten teachers might have
an incomplete understanding of the development of young children’s literacy. A
large part of teacher education comes from in-service and preservice Ieaming.
Therefore, those accountable for teacher training should be proactive in ensuring
emerging literacy awareness. This section includes several suggestions for in-
service and preservice teacher support to enhance young children’s literacy

learning.

1. It is important that teachers be well versed regarding the development
of literacy skills. As children with very divergent skills characterize
today’s kindergarten classes, teachers must be prepared to support
children regardless of their literacy skill development level. It is crucial
that teachers understand where children are developmentally, and they
must realize it is their responsibility to support the development of
those essential skills that must be present in order for children to
progress along a somewhat sequential literacy continuum. In—service
training regarding the developmental progression of emerging literacy
skill development would be beneficial for teachers to review their

understanding of this pattern and would also to help avoid

155

 

inappropriate teaching practices. Teachers also need the support of
administration for continuous support of appropriate practices.

. The majority of teachers in this study indicated that they attend
professional conferences and that that these conferences are
influential sources on their expectations. Professional early education
organizations such as the NAEYC and IRA have an important
responsibility to disseminate information about the developmental
continuum of reading and writing. These organizations can also play
an important role in developing teachers’ competence in a range of
strategies needed to support and assess children’s emerging literacy
(IRA 8 NAEYC, 2000).

. Educators responsible for preservice training must ensure that
prospective teachers understand developmental progressions of
children’s literacy, beginning particularly with language development.
Knowledge of the foundational emerging literacy skills that are
necessary for the development of more abstract skills is essential for
all teachers. Knowing ways in which children might vary in the order of
literacy skills development is also important. By ensuring that novice
teachers start out with strong preservice preparation in this area, there
is a greater likelihood teachers will use appropriate practices and

children will have appropriate experiences.

156

 

 

4. Portfolio use should be introduced by both in-service and preservice
educators. Practicing and preservice teachers ought to be made
aware of the many benefits of a portfolio program. Portfolios can be
used as an on-going assessment of the Ieaming process, as a means
of collaboration and communication between teachers, students, and
parents, and as a showcase of a child’s individual accomplishments,
Ieaming progress, and skills (Soderman, Gregory, 8 McCarty, 2005).
Portfolios should be used and passed along across grade levels. For
this to happen there must be communication among preschools,
kindergarten, and first grades at the classroom, building, and district

level.

Implications for Future Research

This section includes several suggestions for future research related to

teacher perceptions of children’s emerging literacy skills.

1. The sample for this study did not have an equal number of teachers from
rural, urban, and suburban areas. Because of the limits of representation,
some significant teacher perspectives may not have been discovered.
This study should be replicated using a larger and more diverse sample.

2. The sample for this study was made up of kindergarten teachers who
chose to fill out the survey and mail it back. Self-selection for this study
may have limited responses, and therefore a replication of this study using

a compelled sample or interview protocol may result in differing data.

157

 

 

3. The discussion of the results of this study is based on teacher self-report.
A study using teacher observation and interview would illuminate whether
and/or how emerging literacy perspectives of kindergarten teachers are
put into pracfice.

4. A study comparing expectations of preschool teachers, kindergarten
teachers, and first grade teachers who serve the same children over time
would illuminate similarities and differences in teacher perceptions across
different age groups served, and provide some insight into some issues

children may face in moving through these different settings.

 

5. In this sample, a majority of teachers said that their beliefs concerning
when individual emerging literacy skills should be developed were
congruent with their districts demands. Future study might look at
whether teachers’ beliefs really are congruent with district demand. It is
not known whether the teachers’ view of district demand is really
congnrent with their school district. It is only known that teachers think it
is. This type of study would be particularly helpful for district in-services,
as well as lesson continuity.

6. Because parents and childcare providers are also important influences on
children's literacy development (Snow, et al., 1998), discovering the
perspectives of parents and childcare providers concerning emerging
literacy skill development would aid in identifying expectation similarities
and differences.

 

158

 

7. Wl‘lh the passing of the No Child Lelt Behind Act of 2001(NCLB), states,
and subsequently school districts, have had to start changing policies and
practices to meet NCLB guidelines. Future research could investigate
changes in teacher perspectives regarding emerging literacy skills over
the course of time as more states and school districts come into

compliance with Federal mandates.

film

This investigation determined that the responding kindergarten teachers had
some but not a complete understanding of the developmental path of emerging
literacy skills. There seemed to be a lack of awareness as to when certain
foundational emerging literacy skills should be developed and the impact of those
skills on the development of other, more abstract literacy skills. This presents
implications for both experienced teachers and preservice teachers in assuring
their understanding of when and how emerging literacy skills develop in young
children.

Findings from the present study indicate that kindergarten teachers agreed on
when many of young children’s emerging literacy skills should be developed.
The teachers in this study agreed that most of the skills that they were
responsible for teaching are concept of print skills, as well as some alphabetic
principle skills, phonological awareness skills, phonemic awareness skills, and a

few developmental communication skills. The majority of skills that they

159

 

expected 75-80 percent of children to develop prior to kindergarten entry were
oral language skills.

While the teachers in this study agreed on many items of emerging literacy
development, there was also noted disagreement among specific subgroups of
teachers regarding the development of certain emerging literacy skills.
Particularly, differences among teacher perspectives relating to several personal
characteristics, as well as contextual characteristics, emerged. These include:
teaching background; education background; and certain classroom
characteristics including program type, class size, and children’s prior program
experience.

Finally, several factors surfaced that had teacher agreement including:
sources of teacher influence on expectations of children’s literacy readiness,
congruency of kindergarten teacher beliefs of children’s literacy readiness with
others, congruency of kindergarten teacher beliefs with their school district

standards and demands, and the Michigan Curriculum Framework of

kindergarten expectations.

160

 

APPENDICES

 

 

161

 

APPENDIX A

Grade Level Content Expectations: Kindergarten English Language Arts

 

 

 

162

Grade Level Content Expectations: Kindergarten English Language Arts

 

 

 

SECTION OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT EXPECTATION
EXPECTATION
READING
Students will recognize that words are
“'0"! ROCOQNIfiON composed of sounds blended together, and

can do tasks that demonstrate phonemic
awareness. Students understand the
alphabetic principle-that the sounds in words
are expressed by the letters of the alphabet.

 

Students will use grapho-phonemic (letter-
sound) cues to recognize a few one-syllable
words and have begun to associate letters
and sounds, particularly initial and final
consonants.

 

Students will recognize frequently
encountered words in print automatically.
Students should be beginning to learn the
220 Dolch basic sight vocabulary.

 

Students will know the meaning of words
encountered frequently in kindergarten in
oral language contexts.

 

 

Student will follow written text while pointing
to matching words: notice when simple
sentences fail to make sense; make
predictions based on illustrations or portions
of stories; and use picture clues, patterns of
language, or initial letters/sounds to narrow
possibilities in predictingwords.

 

Students will apply the following aspects of
fluency: retelling familiar text and
recognizing_grade level specific words.

 

 

 

 

Students will determine the meaning of
words and phrases (e.g., objects, actions,
concepts, and content and English language
arts vocabulary) in context using strategies
and resources (picture clues, prediction, and
other people.

 

163

 

 

 

Narrative Text

Students will identify and describe a variety
of genre (e.g., nursery rhymes, poetry,
songs»).

 

Students will discuss simple story elements
(e.g., setting, character, events) in narrative
text.

 

Students will identify how authors use
pictures, illustrations to support the
understanding of settings and characters.

 

Informational Text

Students will identify and describe a variety
of informational genre (e.g., environmental
text, concept books, picture books).

 

Students will discuss information text
patterns (e.g., sequential, descriptive).

 

Students will explain how authors use
picture, drawings, and icons to enhance the
understanding of supporting and key ideas
present in descriptive (i.e. definitions,
enumeration) and sequential (directions,
steps, procedures) organizational patterns.

 

Comprehension

Students will connect personal knowledge
and experience to ideas in texts.

 

Students will retell in sequence from books
and stories they have encountered often,
from simple oral and/or written narrative and
informational text (i.e., no more than three
events in the sequence of reading), using
their own words or phrasing.

 

Students will begin to make comparisons and
connections across oral and written text and
personal experience.

 

Students will acquire and use significant
knowledge from what has been read and
experienced in kindergarten, including grade-
Ievel appropriate science and social studies
knowledge, and uses this knowledge to
make connections to new texts.

 

 

Metacognilion

 

Students will self-rnonitor comprehension
when reading grade-level texts (i.e., be
aware if one is understanding what is being
read) and show some use of simple
strategies to increase comprehension (e.g.,
make credible predictions about the content
of a reading based on a preview of the
reading, including the cover of a book and its
pictures).

 

164

 

 

 

 

Students will plan, monitor, regulate and
evaluate skills, strategies and processes to
construct and convey meaning (e.g., notice
when sentences fail to make sense), use
story grammar to identify author’s
perspective and begin to sort and order
information with extensive teacher guidance.

 

Critical Standards

Students will recognize how to assess
personal works and the work of others with
teacher supervision.

 

Reading Attitude

Students are enthusiastic about reading and
learning how to read.

 

Students choose books, book activities, word
play and writing on their won, that is, during
free time in school and at home.

 

WRITING

 

Writing Genres

Students will write brief nanative pieces
(e.g., fairy tales, nursery rhymes or songs)
using pictures and/or illustrations, and words
or work-like clusters as support; brief
informational pieces (e.g., a page for a class
writing assignment) using text, pictures,
drawings, and/or illustrations; and contribute
to a class research project by restating the
class research question in their own words,
selecting appropriate teacher-supplied texts
for support, organizing gathered information
in a correct sequence, using steps in the
writing process to produce a final discourse,
and presenting the finished research project.

 

Process

Students will consider audience needs as
they plan their writing, including
brainstorming to help them generate and
structure ideas for writing narrative as well as
informational text, with teacher assistance as
needed.

 

Students will use phonetic spelling to
represent narrative and informational text
when drafting, incorporating pictures,
drawings and illustrations.

 

 

 

Students will revise writing by reading their
own aloud and requesting additions or
clarifications that support meaninL

 

165

 

 

 

 

 

Both individually and in groups, students will
attempt to edit their writing by reading aloud
their writing/picture and use a grade 1 list.

 

Personal Style

Students will display originality in oral, written
and visual messages (e.g., in nanative text;
natural language, expressed sentiment,
original ideas; in informational text: listing,
naming, describing).

 

Spelling

Students will spell frequently encountered
one-syllable words correctly. For less
frequently encountered words, students will
rely more on structural clues (i.e.,
letter/sound) than environmental sources
such as words walls or words lists. For such
lower frequency words, students will
strategically focus on beginning and some of
the simpler ending sounds more than on
sounds in the middle.

 

Handwriting

Students will form upper and lower case
letters, use known or copied words in writing,
leave space between words and word-like
clusters of letters, write from left to right and
top to bottom, and experiment with
representing ideas and information using
written symbols.

 

Writing Attitude

Students are enthused about writing and
Ieaming how to write.

 

SPEAKING

 

Conventions

Students will use language to communicate
with a variety of audiences and for different
purposes (e.g., courtesies, daily
conversations, playground/classroom
interactions).

 

Students will speak clearly and audibly in
complete coherent sentences, use sound
effects, and use illustrations when presenting
spoken informational and narrative text.

 

 

 

Students make presentations or reports in
standard American English.

 

166

 

 

Students will be aware that language differs
from playground and classroom as a function
of linguistic and cultural group membership.
They can provide examples of language
differences on the playground and in the
classroom.

 

Spoken Discourse

Students will tell/retell brief familiar
experiences or interests, covering the main
story grammar points emphasizing
elaborated setting and character information
while speaking clearly and audibly in
complete sentences.

 

Students will respond to multiple text types
by discussing, drawing, and/or writing in
order to reflect, make meaning and make
connections.

 

Students will plan and deliver presentations
or reports using informational organizational
pattern (e.g., descriptive) and appropriate
text features (e.g., pictures, illustrations),
providing several facts and details to make
their point while speaking clearly and audibly
in complete sentences.

 

LISTENINGNIEWING

 

Conventions
(Interpersonal Processes)

Students will understand and follow one- and
two-step directions.

 

Students will ask appropriate questions
during a presentation or report.

 

Students will listen to each other and interact
appropriately.

 

Students will use effective listening and
viewing behaviors.

 

Students will begin to evaluate messages
they experience, Ieaming to differentiate
between sender and receiver.

 

Response

Students will listen to or view and discuss a
variety of genres.

 

 

 

Students will listen to, view and respond
thoughtfully to both classic and contemporary
texts recognized forgualig and literary merit.

 

167

 

APPENDIX B

Emergent Literacy Skills Survey

 

 

168

EMERGING LITERACY SKILLS SURVEY

Thankyoulorparticipatinginthissurvey. Pleasebeascandidaspossible. Allofyouransverswillbe
anonyrmusandconfidenlial. Yourhoncstyandthoroughnccsm’llensureamorevalidstudy.

 

Demographic Inforrnatlon:
Please couplets the following:
1. Your age
2. Your ethnicity/race _Alrican-American _American Indian _Asian—Pacilic
_Hispanic _While _Other
3. Total number of years in education
4. Number of years teaching kindergarten

10.
11.

12.

13.
14.

15.
16.

17.

18.

Numberofyearsteachingpeschoolchildren
ThemajorareaofconcentrationofyourBA/BS
Highestdegreeeamed

 

DoyouhaveanEa'lyChildhoodendorsenent? Yes No

AreyouamemberofflleNafimdAssociafionbrflleEducafiononwrgCIildren? Yes_No

Doyousubscribetooneorrnoreprofcssiondeducationjoumals? Yes No
Doyouafiendprofessionaleducafionconlerenccs?(0heckallfllatmply) Yes No
ACEI IRA MiAEYC NAEYC MRA Other
Howmalyhoursofpmfcssionaldevelopmthaveyouhadhthelastyear?
Locationofyourcunentschool Rural Suburban Urban
Whattypeotprogramdoyouhavethisyear?
1I2day allday,everyday alday,everyotherday

Howrnaryclridmnareirryourclassroornlhisyea?(onave.,ifyouhavemoretharoneclass)_

I-Iovrmanychildreninyourclassroomthisyearale 5-years-old? 6-ycas—old? 7-
years-old?

mmmmddfldrenmakhgmmdacsrmflisyear
_%AlricalAmerican_%Asian %Hispanic %WhitelCaucasian %Olher

AppmxinatehMpemntagedchfldmnmceivesfieeamdweduchhmdassrounmis
year?

169

19. Pleaselilloutthe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Head Start or Private No preschool Do not
expensnce kirmrgarten Michigan preschool experience know
School
Readiness
Program
Estimated it of
children in your
classroom this
year that have had
a program
experience prior to
kindergarten entry
Have you had
contact with the _Yes _Yes _Yes _Yes
program that your
shldenls may have
experienced? _No _Nc _Nc _Nc
Have you asked
for any portfolios _Yes _Yes _Yes _Yes
Item the following
programs? _No _Nc _No _Nc
Have you received
my portfolios from _Yes _Yes _Yes _Yes
the following
programs? _Nc _Nc _No _No

 

 

20. Howinfluentielhaveeachofthefollowingbeenininfonningyouofexpectationsofchildren‘sliteracy

madiness?

Not at all Influential

Assessrnentusedbythedistrict

Expectations of first grade teachers
Federal legislation

How I was taught as a child

In-service training

Local scth board
Media sources (e.g., TV, radio, newspapers)

Other kindergarten teachers
Past teaching experience
Professional conferences

Professional journals

School district cuniculum
State Curriculum Framework

1

_L—L—fi—L—L—b‘d—L—Lu—b—L—L

N

NNNNNNNNNNNNN

170

SomcMrat Influential

3

wwwwwwwwwwwww

&

hh##h####hh##

Very influential
5

mmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

21. Tomadegmeaeymrbeielsdruudfldmn’sibracycmdrificscugnmwimeachdfle
blowing?

Notctchongruent Somcwlracongrucnt I-Iighlycongrucnt

1 2 3 4 5
Preschoolteachers’expectations 1 2 3 4 5
Olherkindergaltenteachers’expedations 1 2 3 4 5
Firstgradeteachers’expectations 1 2 3 4 5
Paents’expectations 1 2 3 4 5
Stardardssetbymyschooldistrict 1 2 3 4 5
StateCuniculumFramemrk 1 2 3 4 5
StmdadssetbyFederallegislation 1 2 3 4 5

22. Pleasedlcckvnidloneofthefolovringstatementsyoubelievetobehue:
_Borsafleibhaveemflmmmskilmm l.
_GIIIS'MWWSWWWNW

_Boys’ emerging literacy skill development surpasses gill

 

23. Pbaseistbebwflefimnnsthwhrfienergkglitemcyddflsdfldmnsluldhavelpon
kindergartenentry(with#1beinglhemostirnportantek:. Youmaylefertoqucsticn24,ifyouwish):

1.

 

171

 

24. FolowingareemergingHeracyskillsmadevebphdfldmnbetweenfleagesof3ard6yeasdage.
Sarremaybeconsidered‘readiness’skillsflratslnuldbepfimafilydevebpedbythetimeachildreaches
kindergarten. Odersnaybecasidemdsfllbmadevebpmrwflyaflerflndergartenenhacemmealy
firstglade.

Pleasedesignaetheperiodinwhich,basedonyourexperbnce,75%toBO%ofchiflrenwillikelyhave
theseskills, by placing a check mark in thatcolumn only. For example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emerging Skill should be Skill should be primarily Skill should be Is this
thcracy Skills primarily dcvclopcd developed Mar primarily comm with
priorto kindergatcn kindergarten crltr'lllcc dcvcloped during district demand
cntrance first Jradc Yeslllo
1. Write a story x No
Ernerg'ngljbracySkills Skillshould Skillshouldbe Skilshould Isllris
be primarly primarily be primaily consistent
developed developed after developed with rislrict
priorto kinderga'ten drlring first demald
kindergaten entrmce gade
entralce Yes/No

 

1. Recogrize lower case letters

2. Engageinconversalionwithadullswith

multiple exchanges

3. Draw recognizable picture (sell, family,

objects. We)

4. Exhibit reading-like behavior (e.g., turn
correctly, movingfiom front to back)

5. Distinguish betvveen real and make-believe

6. Pretendtoreadabookbytellingastory

fromthepicturesonlhecoverorinlhebook

7. Repeat songs, fingerplays, and movement

8. Follow simple directions

9. Understand that print contains a message

10. Use descriptive Iarrguage (e.g., I want to

plpy with the smdl, red truck)

11. Followlheprintonapage, movingeyes

ill the correct direction

12. Respond to oral language with relevant

comments and questions

13. Retell story details

14. Use irrventedllemporary spelling

15. Understand where to mmadipg

16. Use appropriate expressive vocabulary

17. Understand that words are sepaated by

spaces

18. Recognize upper case letters

19. Develgp a concept of punctuation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

172

 

Skill
should be
primarily
developed
prior to
kindergart
en

entrance

 

Skill should be

primarily
developed alter
kindergaten
entrmce

 

 

Islhis

withl'l'l
demand

Yes/No

 

20 Writelirslna'ne

 

21: Recognize rhyming words

 

22 Listenattenlivelytostories

 

23. Identify end sounds

 

24. Articulate intents, emotions, and desires

 

25. Identify letters of the alphdret

 

26. Understand lhatlettersareformed in a
specific wayand are unchangiflg

 

27. Choose literacy experiences when gimn
a choice

 

28. Identify ginnigg sounds

 

29. Write a sentence

 

30. Recognize Iogographic print (e.g.,
McDonalds, Kmart)

 

31. Associate Ietternarneswillrtlehsounds

 

32. Recognize common nouns and verbs
typical of daily life

 

33. Understandlhedilferencebelween
picturesandprint

 

34. Speakclearlyenoughtobeunderstood
byothers

 

35. Retell a familiar story

 

36. Understandlhedifferencebetweenletters
andwords

 

37. Matdrspokenwordswilhwrittenones

 

38. Write last name

 

39. Read others’ facial and bodyexpressions

 

40. Formulate simple questions

 

41. Write some letters of the dphabet

 

42. Engage in conversation with peers with
multiple exchgges

 

43. Break words into sylldlles

 

44. Develop a sight vocabulary

 

45. Writesomewords

 

46. Use right-to-lelt, top-to-boltom, and front-
to-back orientation in book ream

 

47. Identify common objects (e.g., vehicles)

 

48. Recognize own name in writng

 

49. Identify middle sounds

 

 

50. ldenlifylilleofabook

 

 

 

 

 

173

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

Letter of Teacher Consent

174

KINDERGARTEN TEACHER PERCEPTIONS REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT (1: YOUNG CHILDREN'S
EMERGENT LITERACY SKILLS

DeaKindergarten Teacher,

lnadechdedvdybrheamecsmllimmcydewbmefidmiumnmbbeefiddbundesmnd
drefiteracybfiefsofmeadultsindrargeofchildren’semergingliteracy. Kindergarbnteachersplayar
’lnporlantloleinthedevelopmentofchildren'sliteracy. Therefore, itiscrucialthattlreirbeliefsbe
recognizedanddiscussed. AsakindergartenteacherinlngharnCounty,youhavebeenselectedto
pafidpabinhbshfly,flichmmsflgamsdepempfimmflmmabmexlersmgadingmndey
memmbrbmhimspedflcemmmskibbm3b6yeasdage.

Theatachedsuveytdtesqrplox'lnaerISmirutesbflout AseIf-addrecsedstanpedemlelopeis
providedasameansofmhrrnirgthesunreybtherescachers. Paticipalionisvoluntary. Therewilheno
pendtyumnseqracesiyoudnosendbaswuddfleqnflasuflyoudmsendbpafidpae
atall.

lheirbnnaiongaheredfiornflleslmyswibehededwifllshictcmfidence. Youwilnotbeidentilidrle
inmyleportofresealchfindings. Yourprivacywilbeprotecledtolhemaxirnunextentdlowablebylaw.
Onlytheescercherswillhaveaccecstolhecollecteddata. lfyouhaveanyquestionsorcormrns
regarding this study, please contact the investigators at Dr. Anne Soderman, e-ma'l: soderman@msu.edu,
phone: (517) 432-0692, Peggy Thelen, e-ma'l: thelenpe@msu.edu, phone: (989) 463-6041 or Mchelle
Nicholson, atthe IISD, e-ma'l: mnicho|s@ingmamisd.org, phone: (517) 244-1384.

fiwuhammquamnsmgadmmnghsasashflypafidpataaemedamy
tirnewilh anyaspectofthis study, you maycontact-anonymously, ifyouwish-PeterVasilenko, Ph.D., Cha’r
of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by plrorle: (517) 355-2180,

fax (517) 432-4503, e-mai: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regula ma'l: 202 Olds hdl, East Larsing, Ml 48824.

Asagcshrmdqrpreddionbryourcmsmmflflommeamdndsuwcy,youwlflhwcdle
Wflymparddpateinadnwlngforoneofburfiommflcelflficatesfiunabcdbookstore.
Yummmwmmwmmmmmmwam
Orrcereceived,mehveshgabrwiflseparatehrecmsemletterfiunflesuwey. Allconsentletterswillbe
putinasecurecontainer. Fwnaneswiflbedrawnhomdroseparhcbatirgbachersbreceiveagifi
certificab. hyouwishbpafidpabhfledmwing,pbasemdbateyournam,sdm,adsdbddishbt
belowardretunthislebrwithyourswvey. Ifyouchooserxrtbpaticbdeillhedrawilgs’cmlylehm
onlythesurvey. HcascrshrmdlesurvcytomcbyAprll .2004.

Yourpultcipdlonisgcdlywprccldcd. Flntirrgswlbcuccdtodcccrnwhdirqrcctexperlcnce
“Mnghmcmlkescybdidsawcflammmmmbr
prcschoolandklndcrwtcntccchcrs.

Mt

PeggyTlmn
Ph.D.Cardidw

If I' Stall' 'I

Name
SI I D‘I'I

175

APPENDIX D

Principal Letter

176

 

 

InmefioflbbetbrwdestaflibmcypempfiomdflndegabnbademhlmhanCwfiy,Peggy
Thelen, a graduate studentat Michigan State University, in cooperation with the Ingham Intermediate
School District (IISD) is facilitating a literacy study in Inghan County. This study will ascertain those
emerging literacy skills kindergarten teachers thinkshould beprirnalily developed priortokindergarten
entry, during kindergarten, and during early first grade.

EverykindergartenteacherirlnghanCouMywillleceiveasurveybymail. Themyswillbeiehrrnedb
theinvesligatorbymail. lhellSDwilmceivedatagameredfiornflresuweys,wlidiflrenmaybeusedb
designpersonneldevelopment

Tliekibrnrafiongaleiedfiundiesllveysrwlbeheaeduiihshictcmfideme. Teacherswillnotbe
identifiableinanyreportofresealchfindings.lheirprivacywrllbeprotectedtothemaximumexterrt I
dowablebylaw. Onlytheresearclierswillhaveaccesstothecollecteddata. Ifycuhaveanyquestionsor F‘
concemsregardingthisstudy,pleasecontacttheinvestigatorsat Dr.AnneSodennan,e—mail: '
soderman@msu.edu, phone: (517) 432-0692, Peggy Thelen, e-ma'l: thelenpe@msu.edu, phone: (989) 463-
6041 or Michelle Nicholson, attire lnghan ISD, e-mail: mnichols@inqhamisd.org, phone: (517) 244-1384.

 

Inadebmdrehbshdymmsuwecsblmeaeasfinguhdpdsbsmmfiwefiubbhaveasmmy
kindergartenteachersaspossiblefilloutandiehrmlhesurvey. Youreflortstosupportlhisproject,by
geiflymnwmteaclembfilmnflesuweymdmmmflemhafinelymammbuflbegmdly
arpreciated. Teaclielsumiemmdesuveyswilhavealoppommnybwinagificerfificatebabcal
bookstore. TherehmdateisApii .2004.

lfyou hawmyquesfiusmcacens,uaedbsdisfiedamyfinbwimmyaspeddflisshdy,youmy
contact-anonymously, if you wish-Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Mach
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, talc (517)432-4503, e-mail:
ucrihs@msu.edu, or reglda’ ma’l: 202 Olds hdl, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Yorrassistmceinslpportinglhispiojectisgreatlywpreciated. PleaseconacteiflrerPeggyThelenor
MchelleNicholscnifyouhaveanyspecificquestionsaboutdlisshidy. TheIlSDwiIlcontactyouregading
fledbhbufionofdearuopriabdatabryoudishialsdbdassoonashisava'labb.

 

 

Sincerely,

Peggy Thelen Dr. Anne K Sodennal

Graduate Student Professor of Family and Child Ecology
College of Human Ecology College of Human Ecology

Michigan State University Michigan State University

(989) 463-6041 (517) 432-0692

thelenpe@msu.edu sodermaansuedu

Illlichelle Nicholson

SupervisorofEallyChildhood Education-School DevelopmentServices
Ingham Intermediate School District

(517) 244-1384

mnichols@inghamisd.org

177

APPENDIX E

University Letter of Consent for Research

178

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
ETHICS AND
STANDARDS

Irrhrerelty Committee ee
Research Involving
Human Subjects

Mlchigm Sm University
202 Olds Hell

Em Lsnslng. MI

48824

517135521”
FAX: 51 71432-4503

: WNW/nulls
E-Mail: Mew

Wham-dim.
WM

MICHIGAN STATE
u N r v E R s r T Y

 

April 22. 2004

TO: Anne SODERMAN
13-H Human Ecology
MSU

RE: IRB# 04-260 CATEGORY: EXEMPT 1-1, 1-2

APPROVAL DATE: April 20, 2004
EXPIRATION DATE March 20, 2005

TITLE: Kindergarten Teacher Perceptions Regarding the Development of Young
Children's Emerging Literacy Skills

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this

project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human

subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are

appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project. -

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. Projects
continuing beyond this date must be renewed with the renewal form. A maximum of four such
expedited renewals are possible. InvestigatOrs wishing to continue a project beyond that time
need to submit a 5-year application for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. prior
to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please include a revision form
with the renewal. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your
written request with an attached revision cover sheet to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised
approval and referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include in your request a description of
the change and any revised instruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.
PROBLEMSICHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work.
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
approved.

'If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at (517) 355-2180 or via email:

UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
http:/Iwww.humanresearch.msu.edu

Sincerely,

Wfi

Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D.
UCRIHS Chair

PV:rt

002 Peggy Thelen

4288 W. Jackson Rd.
Alma. MI 48801

179

REFERENCES

180

 

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and Ieaming about print.
Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Administration for Children and Families (n.d.). Compilation of the Head Start
Act: Staff qualifications and development. Retrieved November 7, 2003,
from http://www.acf.hhs.govlprogramslhsb/budgetlheadstartact.htm

Administration for Children and Families (2002). Head Start history. Retrieved
May, 8, 2003, from http:/lwwwacf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/about/history.htm

 

Administration for Children and Families (2003). Head Start program fact sheet.
Retrieved May 8, 2003, from
http://wwwacf.hhs.gov/proqrams/hsb/research/2003.htm

 

Allington, R. L., & Cunningham, P. M. (1996). Schools that work: Where all
children read and write. New York: Harper Collins.

Almy, M. C. (1975). The early childhood educator at work. New York: McGraw-
Hill, Inc.

Anderson, A. B., 8. Stokes, S. J. (1984). Social and institutional influences on the
development and practice of literacy. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, 8. F. Smith
(Eds), Awakening to literacy (pp. 2447). Portsmouth, NH: Heinernann.

Anthony, J. L., Lonigan, C. J., 8. Driscoll, K. (2003). Phonological sensitivity A
quasi-parallel progression of word structure units and cognitive operations.
Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 4, 470-487.

Au, K. H. (1981). Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian
children: Analysis of a culturally appropriate instructional event.
Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 11, 91-115.

Au, K. H. (1993). Literacyinstruction in multicultural settings. Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace.

Au, K H., & Mason, J. M. (1981). Social organizational factors in Ieaming to
read. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 115-152.

Baker, L., Sonnenschein, S., Serpell, R., Scher, D., et al. (1996). Early literacy

at home: Children’s experiences and parents’ perspectives. The Reading
Teacher, 50(1), 70-72.

181

Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effect of early childhood programs on cognitive
an school outcomes. The Future of Children, (3), 25-50.

Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies—a comparative analysis.
Human Relations, 52(4), 421 -439.

Beals, D. E., & De Temple, J. M. (1993). Home contributions to early language
and literacy development. In D. Leu & C. Kinzer (Eds), Examining central
issues in literacy research, dreary, and practice. Forty-second yearbook of
the National Reading Conference (pp. 207-215). Chicago: National
Reading Conference.

Berger, L., 8. Gunn, G. (2003). Challenging districts to ‘put reading first.” T. H. E.
Journal, 30(10), $29-32.

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and Ieaming to read: A
causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-421.

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington,
DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bmdekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate
practice in early childhood programs. Washington DC: National Association
for the Eduwtion of Young Children.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental
processes. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) 8. R. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of
child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5“ ed.,
pp. 993-1028). New York: Wiley 8. Sons.

Bryant, D. M., Clifford, R. M., & Peisner, E. S. (1991). Best practices for
beginners: Developmental appropriateness in kindergarten. American
Education Research Journal, 28, 783-803.

Burns, 8., Griffin, P., 8: Snow, C. E. (1999). Starting out right: A guide to
promoting children’s reading success. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.

Bus, A. G., van lJzendoom, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading
makes for success in Ieaming to read: A meta-analysis in intergenerational
transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65, 1-21.

Byme, B. J. (1998). The foundation of literacy: The child’s acquisition of the
alphabetic principle. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

182

Caldwell, B. M., & Freyer, M. (1982). Day care and early edueation. In B.
Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research in early childhood (pp. 341-374). New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Chomsky, C. (1972). Write now, read later. In C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Language in
early childhood education (pp.119-126). Washington, DC: National
Association for the Education of Young Children.

Christie, J., Enz, 8., & Vukelich, C. (1997). Teaching language and literacy:
Preschool through the elementary grades. New York: Longman.

Clay, M. M. (1966). Emergent reading behaviour. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of Auckland Library, New Zealand.

Clay, M. M. (1976). Early childhood and cultural diversity in New Zealand. The
Reading Teacher, 29, 333-342.

Clay, M. M. (1979). Reading: The patterning of complex behavior (2":I ed.).
Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.

Cost, Quality, & Child Outcomes Study Team (1995). Cost, quality, and child
outcomes in child care center, public report (2"d ed.). Denver, co: Economic
Department, University of Colorado at Denver.

Crain-Thoreson, C., & Dale, P. S. (1992). Do early talkers become early
readers? Linguistic precocity, preschool language, and emergent literacy.
Developmental Psychology, 28, 421 -429.

Delgado-Gaitan, C., 8. Trueba, H. (1997). Crossing cultural borders: Education
for immigrant families in America. New York: Falrner Press.

DeVault, L. (2003). The tide is high, but we can hold on. Young Children, 58(6),
90-93.

Dewey, J. (1990). The school and society, and, The child and the curriculum.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Dickinson, A (1999, November 8). Kinder Grind. Forget blocks, dress-up and
show-and-tell. Five-year-olds are now being pushed to read. Are we asking
too much too soon? Time, 154, 61-62.

Dickinson, D. K., & DiGisi, L. L. (1998). The many rewards of a literacy-rich
classroom. Educational Leadership, 55(6), 23-26.

183

Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. 0. (1991). Early literacy: Linkages between
home, school and literacy achievement at age five. Journal of Research in
Childhood Education, 6(1), 30-46.

Dowhower, S. L., 8. Beagle, K. G. (1998). The print environment in
kindergartens: A study of conventional and holistic teachers and their
classroom in three settings. Reading Research and Instruction, 37(3), 161-
190.

Downs, R. B. (1978). Friedrich Froebel. Boston: Twayne Publishers.

Duke, N. K. (2000). For the rich it’s richer“. Print experiences and environments
offered to children in very low- and very-high socioeconomic status first-grade
classrooms. American Educational Research Joumal, 37(2), 441 -478.

Duke, N. K., 8. Bennett-Armistead, V. S. (2003). Reading & writing informational
text in the primary grades. New York: Scholastic, Inc.

Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early: Two longitudinal studies. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Durkin, D. (1978). Teaching young children to read (2" ed.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.

Durkin, D. (1987). A classroom-observation study of reading instruction in
kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2(3), 275-300.

Edwards, D. (2000). Public factors that contribute to school readiness. Early Childhood
Research and Practice, 1(2). Retrieved February 12, 2001, from
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v1n2/print/edwards.htm|

 

Edwards, P. A (1991). Fostering early literacy through parent coaching. In E. H. Hieger
(Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, and policies (pp. 199-
212). New York: Teachers College Press

Evans, M. A., Shaw, 0., 8. Bell, M. (2000). Home literacy activities and their
influence on early literacy skills. Canadian Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 54(2), 65—75.

Federal lnteragency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2002). America’s
Children 2002. Retrieved on August 10, 2003, from
http:/Mww.childstats.govlac2002/http

Fitzgerald, J., Spiegel, D. L., & Cunningham, J. W. (1991). The relationship

between parental literacy level and perceptions of emergent literacy. Journal
of Reading Behavior, 23, 191 -21 3.

184

Froebel, F. W. (1889). The education of man. New York: Appleton.

Gadsden, V. L. (1998). Family cultures and literacy Ieaming. In J. Osborn & F.
Lehr (Eds), Literacy for all. Issues in teaching and learning (pp. 32-53). New
York: The Guilford Press.

Galda, L., & Cullinan, B. (1991). Literature for literacy: What research says
about the benefits of using trade books in the classroom. In J. Flood, J.
Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. Squire, (Eds), Handbook of research on teaching the
English Language Arts (pp.529-535). New York: Macmillan.

Gans, R., Stendler, C., & Almy, M. (1952). Teaching young children in nursery
school, kindergarten and the primary grades. Yonkers, NY: World Book
Company.

Gitomer, D. H., Latham, A S., & Ziomek, R. (1999). The academic quality of
prospective teachers: The impact of admissions and licensure testing.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Goertz, M., & Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high? stakes testing
and accountability programs. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 4—1 1.

Goldenberg, C. N., 8: Gallimore, R. (1995). Immigrant Latino parents’ values and
beliefs about their children’s education: Continuities and discontinuities
across cultures and generations. In P. Pintrich & M. Maehr (Eds), Culture,
motivation, and achievement (pp. 183-227). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.

Goldenberg, C. N., Reese, L., 8 Gallimore, R. (1992). Effects of literacy
materials from school on Latino children’s home experiences and reading
achievement American Journal of Education, 100, 497-537.

Goodman, Y. (1985). Kidwatching: Observing children in the classroom. In A.
Jagger & M. Smith-Burke (Eds), Observing the language leamer.
Newark, DE: lntemational Reading Association. (ERIC Document
Reprbduction Services No. E0251 857)

Goodman, Y. (1986). Children coming to know literacy. In W. Teale 8. E. Sulzby
(Eds), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Graue, M. E. (1993). Ready for what? Constructing meanings of readiness for
kindergarten. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Hall, N. (1991). Play and the emergence of literacy. In J. F. Christie (Ed.), Play

and literacy development (pp. 3-25). Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.

185

Hall, S. L., 8 Moats, L. C. (1999). Straight talk about reading: How parents can
make a difi'erence during the early years. Chiwgo: Contemporary Books.

Hammer, C. S., Miccio, A. W., 8 Wagstaff, D. A. (2003). Home literacy
experiences and their relationship to bilingual preschoolers. Developing
English literacy abilities: An initial investigation. Language, speech, and
hearing services in schools, 34(1), 20-30.

Harste, J. C., 8 Burke, C. L. (1980) Examining instructional assumptions: The
child as informant. Theoryinto Practice, 1(3), 170-178.

Harste, J. C., Woodward, V. A, 8 Burke, C. L. (1984). Language stories and
literacy lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hart, 8., 8 Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful difl'erences in the everyday
experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Co.

Heath, 8. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home
and school. Language in Society, 1(1), 49-76.

Heath, S. B., (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities
and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University press.

Hiebert, E. H. (1981). Developmental patterns and interrelationships of pre-
school children’s point awareness. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 236-
260.

Hiebert, E. H., 8 Adams, C. S. (1987). Father’s and mother's perceptions of their
preschool children’s emergent literacy. Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology. 44, 2537.

Hill, Patty Smith (1996). Kindergarten. In K. M. Paciorek 8 J. H. Munro (Eds),
Sources: Notable selections in early childhood education (pp. 82-91).
Guilford, CT: Brown 8 Benchmark Publishers.

Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. Sydney, Australia: Ashton
Scholastic.

lntemational Reading Association and National Association for the Education of
Young Children (2000). Position Statement Learning to read and write.

Developmentally appropriate practice for young children. Washington, D. C. :
NAEYC.

Irwin, O. (1960). Infant speech: Effect of systematic reading of stories. Journal
of Speech and Hearing Research, 3, 187-190.

186

Jehlen, A. (2004). Saving the day. NEA Today, 22, 24-37.

Kaestle, C. F., 8 Vinovskis, M. A (1978). From apron strings to ABC’s: Parents,
children and schooling in nineteenth century Massachusetts. In J. Demos 8
S. S. 800ka (Eds), Turning points: Historical and sociological essays on
the family. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Katz, L. G. (1997, Fall). Tomorrow begins today: Implication from research.
ERIC/EECE Newsletter, 9(2), 1-2.

Kisker, E., Hofferth, 8., Phillips, 0., 8 Farquhar, E. (1991). A profile of child care:
Early education and care in 1990. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of
Education.

Kostelnik, M. J., Soderman, A. K., 8 Whiren, A. P. (1999). Developmentally
appropriate programs in early childhood education (2"‘I ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Menill.

Kostelnik, M. J., Soderman, A. K., 8 Whiren, A. P. (2004). Developmentally
appropriate curriculum: Best practices in early childhood education (3” ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in
elementary education. New York: Falmer.

Legislative Council, State of Michigan (2003). The revised school code. Act 451
of 1976. Retrieved on November 7, 2003, from
httpjlwww.michiganlegislature.orgldocumentslmcllpdflmcl—380—1 531 .pdf

Lively, K. (1998). States move to toughen standards for teacher-education
programs. Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(47), A27-A28.

Lomax, R. G., 8 McGee, L. M. (1987). Young children’s concepts about print
and reading: Toward a model of word reading acquisition. Reading Research
Quarterly, 22, 237-256.

Lonigan, C. J., Dyer, S. M., 8 Anthony, J. L. (1996). The influence of the home
literacy environment on the development of literacy skill in children from
diverse racial and economic backgrounds. Paper presented at the Annual
convention of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Lonigan, C. J., 8 Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Golfing ready to read: Emergent
literacy and family literacy. Bethesda, MA: National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development; Washington, DC: Administration for Children and
Families; Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable Tnlsts. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED450418).

187

Luke, A, 8 Kale, J. (1997). Learning through difference: Cultural practices in
early childhood language socialization. In E. Gregory (Ed.), One child, many
worlds (pp. 11-29). London, England: David Fulton Publishers.

MacKinnon, P. (1959). Howdo children read? Montreal, Canada: Copp.

Maclean, M., Bryant, P., 8 Bradley, L. (1987). Rhymes, nursery rhymes, and
reading in early childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 255-281.

Mason, 6., 8 Blanton, W. (1971). Story content for beginning reading instruction.
Elementary English, 28, 793-796.

Mason, J. M. (1992). Reading stories to children: A proposed connection to
reading. In P. Gough, L. Ehir, 8 R. Treiman (Eds), Reading acquisition (pp.
215-242). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

McCarthey, S. J. (1997). Making the invisible more visible: Home literacy
practices of middle-class and working-class families. Early Childhood and
Care, 127, 179-189.

McGee, L., 8 Richgels, D. (1996). Literacy's beginnings: Supporting young
readers and writers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Michaels, S. (1981). “Sharing time”: Children’s nanative styles and differential
access to literacy. Language in Society, 10(3), 423-442.

Morgan, A L. (1987). The development of written language awareness in black
preschool children. Journal of Reading Behavior (19), 1, 49—67.

Michigan Department of Education (1996). Michigan Curriculum Framework.
Michigan Department of Education.

Michigan Department of Education (2004). Grade Level Content Expectations:
Kindergarten English Language Arts. Retrieved on January 10, 2004, from
www.michigan.gov/documents/ELA 00 (k) 87343 7.pdf

Moon, C., 8 Wells, C. G. (1979). The influence of the home on Ieaming to read.
Joumal of Research in Reading, 2, 53—62.

Morrow, L. M. (1989). Literacy development in the early years. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Morrow, L. M. (1993). Literacy in the early years: Helping children read and
write. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

188

National Assessment of Educational Progress (1991). The 1989-1990 National
assessment of reading and literature. Denver, CO: National Assessment of
Educational Progress.

National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification
(NASDTEC) (1998). The NASDTEC manual on the preparation and
certification of educational personnel. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

National Center for Early Development and Learning (1997). Quality in child care
centers. Early Childhood Research 8 Policy Briefs Fact Sheet, 1(1), 1-2.

National Center for Education Statistics (2002). Digest of education statistics,
2001. Retrieved on May 8, 2003, from
http://nces.edu.gov/puszOOZ/diqestZOO1/tables/dto43.asp

 

National Research Council (1998). Preventing reading difliculties in young
children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Neuman, S. 8., Copple, C., 8 Bredekamp, S. (2000). Leaming to read and write:
Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Neuman, S. 8., Hagedom, T., Celano, D., 8 Daly, P. (1995). Toward a
collaborative approach to parent involvement in early education: A study of
teenage mothers in an African-American community. American Educational
Research Journal, 32, 801 -827.

Neuman S. 8., 8 Roskos, K. (1997). Literacy knowledge in practice: Context of
participation for young writers and readers. Reading Research Quarterly,
32(1), 10-32.

Nielsen, D. C., 8 Monson, D. L. (1996). Effects of literacy environment on
literacy development of kindergarten children. The Journal of Educational
Research, 89, 259-71.

Ninio, A. (1980). Picture-book reading in mother-infant dyads belonging to two
sub-groups in Israel. Child Development, 51, 587-590.

Ninio, A, 8 Bruner, J. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labeling.
Journal of Child Language, 5, 5—15.

Ortiz, V. (1986). Reading activities and reading proficiency among Hispanic,
Black, and White students. American Journal of Education, 95, 58-76.

Palmer, J. S. (2001). Filly major thinkers on education: From Confircius to
Dewey. New York: Rutledge.

189

Paratore, J. R., Melzi, G., 8 Krol-Sinclair, 8. (1999). What should we expect of
family literacy? Newark, DE: lntemational Reading Association and The
National Reading Conference.

Paratore, J. R., Melzi, G., 8 KroI-Sinclair, 8. (2003). Learning about the literate
lives of Latino families. In D. M. Barone 8 L. M. Morrow (Eds), Literacy
and young children. Research-based practices (pp.101-118). New York:
The Guilford Press.

Peterson, D. S., Taylor, 8. M., 8 Hansen, R. (n.d.). Emergent literacy and oral
language development. Retrieved September 21, 2003, from
http://education.umn.edu/Cl/MREA/EmergentLitpdf

 

Philips, S. U. (1983). Theinvisible culture. NewYork: Longman.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1995). Other people’s words: The cycle of low literacy.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the TV Guide; Relationships
between home literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowledge.
Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4), 406-428.

Purcell—Gates, V. (2000). Family Literacy. In M. L. Kamil, P. 8. Mosenthal, P. D.
Pearson, 8 R. Barr (Eds), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 3 (pp. 853-
870). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Read, C. (1971). Preschool children’s knowledge of English phonology. Harvard
Educational Review, 41(1), 1-34.

Read, K. H., 8 Patterson, J. (1980). The nursery school and kindergarten.
Human relationships and Ieaming. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Vlrrnston.

Roskos, K. A, Christie, J. F., 8Richgels, D. J. (2003). Theessentialsofearly
literacy instruction. Young Children, (58), 2, 52-60.

Saluja, 6., Early, D. M., 8 Clifford, R. M. (2002, Spring). Demographic
characteristics of early childhood teachers and structural elements of early
care and education in the United States. Early Childhood Research 8
Practice, 4(1). Retrieved October 21, 2003, from
http:/Ieclp.uiuc.edulv4nllsaluja.html

Scarborough, H. 8., 8 Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to
preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14, 245-302.

190

Schickedanz, J. A. (1986). More than ABC’s: The early stages of reading and
writing. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young
Children.

Schieffelin, B. 8., 8 Cochran-Smith, M. (1984). Learning to read culturally
Literacy before schooling. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, 8 F. Smith (Eds),
Awakening to literacy (pp. 3-23). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Schmidt, P. R. (1998). Cultural conflict and struggle: Literacy Ieaming in a
kindergarten program. New York: Peter Lang.

Senechal, M., 8 Cornell, E. H. (1993). Vocabulary acquisition through shared
reading experiences. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 360-375.

Senechal, M., LeFevre, J., Hudson, E., 8 Lawson, E. P. (1996). Knowledge of
storybooks as a predictor of young children’s vocabulary. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88, 520-536.

Senechal, M., LeFevre, J., Thomas, E. M., 8 Daley, K. K. (1998). Differential
effects of home literacy experiences on the development of oral and written
language. Reading Research Quarterly, 13, 96-116.

Shapiro, M. S. (1983). Child’s garden: The kindergarten movement from Froebel
to Dewey. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Snow, C. E., Barnes, W., Chandler, J., Goodman, l., 8 Hemphill, L. (1991).
Unfulfilled expectations: Home and school influences in literacy. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Snow, C., Burns, M. 8., 8 Griffin, P. (Eds). (1998). Preventing reading
difliculties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Soderman, A K, Gregory, K. M., 8 O’Neill, L. T. (1999). Scafl'olding emergent
literacy. A child-centered approach for preschool through grade 5. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.

Soderman, A. K, Gregory, K. M., 8 McCarty, L. T. (2005). Scafl'olding emergent
literacy. A child-centered approach for preschool through grade 5 (2"d ed).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Sonnenschein, S., Brody, G., 8 Munstennan, K. (1996). The influence of family
beliefs and practices on children’s early reading development. In L. Baker, P.
Afflerbach, 8 D. Reinking (Eds), Developing engaged readers in school and
home communities (pp. 3—20). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

191

Spodek, B. (1996). The kindergarten: A retrospective and contemporary view.
In K. M. Paciorek 8 J. H. Munro (Eds), Sources: Notable selections in early
childhood education (pp. 92-103). Guilford, CT: Brown 8 Benchmark

Stahl, S. A, 8 McKenna, M. C. (2000, April 25). The concurrent development of
phonological awareness, word recognition, and spelling. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association.
Retrieved September 21, 2003, from htthlciera.orgllibrarylarchivel2001-07
[200107.htm

Stahl, S. A, 8 Munay, B. A. (1994). Defining phonological awareness and its
relationship to early reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 221-234.

Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., 8 Cramer, B. (1984). Assessing
phonological awareness in kindergarten children: Issues of task
comparability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 175-190.

Stephens, D., 8 Clyde, J. A. (1985). Curriculum as theory driven: Insights from
six classrooms. In J. C. Halste 8 D. Stephens (Eds), Toward practical
theory: A state of practice assessment of reading comprehension
instructions. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Language Education
Department.

 

Stevenson, H. W., 8 Newman, R. S. (1986). Long-tenn prediction of
achievement and attitudes in mathematics and reading. Child Development,
57, 646-659.

Strickland, C. E. (1982). Paths not taken: Seminal models of early childhood
education in Jacksonian America. In 8. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research
in early childhood (pp. 321-340). New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company.

Strickland, D. S., 8Morrow, L. M. (1989). Emergingliteracy: Youngchildren
leamtoreadandwrite. Newark, DE: lntemationalReadingAssociation.

Sulzby, E., 8 Edwards, P. A (1993). The role of parents in supporting literacy
development of young children. In B. Spodak 8 O. N. Salacho (Eds),
Language and literacy in early childhood education (pp. 156-177). New York:
Teachers College Press.

Sulzby, E., 8 Teale, W. H. (1991). Emergent literacy. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.
Mosenthal, 8 P. D. Pearson (Eds), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2,
pp.727-757). New York: Longman.

 

Taylor, D. (1 998). Family literacy: Young children Ieaming to read and write (2"
ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

192

Taylor, D., 8 Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning from
inner-city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Taylor, N. E., Blum, I. H., 8 Logsdon, D. M. (1986). The development of written
language awareness: Environmental aspects and program characteristics.
Reading Research Quarterly, 21(2), 132-149.

Taylor, R. L. (1995). Functional uses of reading and shared literacy activities in
Icelandic homes: A monograph in family literacy. Reading Research
Quarterly, 30, 194-219.

Teale, W. H. (1978). Positive environments for learning to read: What studies of
early readers tell us. Language Arts, 55, 922-932.

Teale, W. H. (1981). Parents reading to their children: What we know and need
to know. Language Arts, 58(8), 902-912.

Teale, W. H. (1986). Home background and young children’s literacy
development In W. H. Teale 8 E. Sulzby (Eds), Emergent literacy: Writing
andreading (pp. 173-206). Norwood, NH: Ablex.

Teale, W. H. (1995). Young children and reading: Trends across the twentieth
century. Journal of Education, 177(3), 95—125.

Teale, W. H.,8Sulzby, E. (Eds). (1986). Emergentliteracy: Writingand
reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Teale, W. H., 8 Sulzby, E. (1989). Emergent literacy: New perspectives. In D.
S. Strickland 8 L. M. Morrow (Eds), Emerging literacy: Young children
learn to read and write (pp. 1-15). Newark, DE: lntemational Reading Assoc.

Thelen, P. (2002). Kindergarten Readiness Skill Survey. Kindergarten and Head
Start teachers: Do they agree on readiness skills and abilities? Unpublished
report for the Lansing School District, Lansing, MI.

Thomas, R. M. (2000). Comparing theories of child development Stamford, CT:
Wadsworthfl'homson Learning.

United States Census Bureau (1995). Urban and rural definitions. Retrieved
September 8, 2004, from
http:/lwww.census.govlpopulationlcensusdatalurdef.txt.

United States Census Bureau (2001). The Hispanic population in the United

States. Retrieved July 30, 2003, from
httpleww.censusgovlpopulationlsocdemolhispaniclp20-535.pd.

193

 

United States Census Bureau (2003). Statistical Abstract of the United States.
Retrieved July 30, 2003, from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003publeZstatab/labor.pdf

United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (2001).
Historical statistics of the United States; Colonial times to 1970; Current
population reports, Series P-20, various years; and cunent population survey,
unpublished data. Retrieved July 30, 2003,
from http'Jl www.census.govlpopuIationldocumentationltwps0056lhtmI

United States Department of Education (2002). Introduction: No child left
behind. Retrieved April 22, 2003, from
http://www.nochildleftbehind.gov/next/overview/index/htmI

United States Department of Health and Human Services (n.d.). Head Start
Child Outcorrre Framework. Washington, D. C. : USDHHS.

Valdes, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the gap between culturally diverse
families and schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Volk, D. (1997). Questions in lessons. Anthropology and Education Quarterly,
28, 22-49.

Wagner, R. K., 8 Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing
and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin,
101, 192-212.

Wagner, R. K, Torgesen, J. K, 8 Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Development of
reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bi-
directional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental
Psychology, 30, 73-87.

Walker, G. H., 8 Kuerrbitz, l. E. (1979). Reading to preschoolers as an aid to a
successful beginning reading. Reading Improvement, 16, 149-154.

Wells, G. (1985). Language development in the preschool years. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

White, M. P. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic
achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 461 -481.

Whitehurst, G. J., 8 Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent
literacy. Child Development, 68, 848-872.

194

Whitehurst, G. J., 8 Lonigan, C. J. (2001). Emergent literacy: Development from
prereaders to readers. In S. B. Neuman 8 K. K. Dickinson (Eds),
Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 11-29). New York: Guilford
Press.

Winsor, P. J., 8 Pearson, P. D. (1992). Children at risk: Their phonemic
awareness development in holistic instruction (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED345209).

Xu, 8. H. (1999). Reexamining continuities and discontinuities: Language
minority children’s home and school literacy experiences. National Reading
Conference Yearbook, 48, 224-237.

Xu, S. H. (2003). The learner, the teacher, the text, and the context.
Sociocultural approaches to early literacy instruction for English language
Ieamers. In D. M. Barone 8 L. M. Morrow (Eds), Literacy and young
children. New York: Guilford.

Yaden, D. B., Rowe, D. W., 8 MacGillivray, L. (2000). Emergent literacy: A
matter (polyphony) of perspectives. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal,
P. D. Pearson, 8 R. Barr (Eds), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 3
(pp.425-445). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Yatvin, J., Weaver, 0., 8 Garan, E. (2003). Reading first: Cautions and
recommendations. Language Arts, 81(1), 28-35.

195

 

 

 

 

 

    
    

‘INI'VI'HSII T LIURARIF 'r

mumrmu ‘il-‘ATE _
r r I
r I .
I “ ‘ ‘
IIIIIIIIIHIIII

3 1293 02504 0399