Shanahan, T., Cunningham, A., Escamilla, K. C., Fischel, J., Landry, S., Lonigan, C. J., … Strickland, D. (2008). Developing Early Literacy (pp. 1–231). Jessup, MD. Retrieved from http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf
Summary
This research centers on best practices for parents and educators in early literacy as suggested by a panel of experts. According to Shanahan et al. (2008), “The National Assessment of Educational Progress reveals that 37 percent of U.S. fourth graders fail to achieve basic levels of reading achievement” (p. v) which is why this panel of experts was created. The panel sought to discover what are the best practices to build early literacy skills. Of particular interest to my research is “which programs, interventions, and other instructional approaches or procedures have contributed to or inhibited gains in children’s skills and abilities that are linked to later outcomes in reading, writing, or spelling?” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. vi). In order to synthesize best approaches to early literacy, a meta-analysis of research already present in this field was conducted. The goal was to provide a framework for educators and parents of young children to follow in helping this population develop in literacy.
Organization
This research was presented in the form of a report. Headings were helpful in navigating this long document. It was clear who conducted this research, why it was conducted, how and the conclusions they came to.
As the researchers divided up the study into different categories, such as early intervention and parent involvement, it was easy to follow. To improve, I think there could be a simplified synthesis at the very end of the study of next steps to follow and which stakeholders need to follow them.
Contribution to Field
Before I identify the contribution to the field, it is important to note that these findings are based on some research designs that are not completely valid, as the effectiveness of some of the analyzed literacy strategies were based on simple pre and post-test results, something that the authors acknowledged. From this panel’s research, we know that interventions overall have a positive effect on early childhood literacy acquisition. The strength of these interventions, however, had to do with what instructional techniques were used and how much time was devoted to it. The panel determined it crucial that teachers use activities and methodologies that may not be typically seen in early childhood.
Literature Used for Meta-Analysis
The study was based on what literature was out there to synthesize in order to make recommendations for early childhood literacy instruction. Through a search of major research journals, literature reviews and research recommended from people on the panel, 8,000 potential articles were screened. From this review, 500 research articles were analyzed. Overall, “correlational data showing the relationships between children’s early abilities and skills and later literacy development and experimental data that showed the impact of instructional interventions on children’s learning” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. vi).
Data Collection
The data collection was through analyzing the 500 studies that were identified during the literature review. Identifying specific search terms that were then broken down into categories did this. Once studies were found, there was a particular criterion the researchers followed in order to decide what was valid research, one of which is that it needed to be empirical research that had been published in a refereed journal.
As the study acknowledged, “the major limitation confronting any meta-analysis is the quality of the original studies that are being combined” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. x).
Analysis
The article stated that the study “sought to identify the most comprehensive set of obtainable data in an unbiased way and to analyze those data in a straightforward manner with a minimum of manipulation or recalculation of the original data” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. 1). There were specific research questions that the panel followed in the analysis, which could provide a framework for future researchers to use when analyzing further studies. They also included every document they used to analyze the data. Therefore, it is possible to duplicate this research or at least use the guiding questions when coming across new literature.
Theoretical Framework/Lens
The lens here is that there are many emergent literacy theories out there that need to be synthesized. The point of this study was to consolidate what is out there, using the minds of this informed panel to make recommendations for early literacy instruction.
Findings & Conclusions
A particularly interesting finding is that the studies on language interventions have shown to be effective overall. These interventions are particularly effective when the oral language strategies are “defined as a diverse set of outcomes, such as expressive and receptive language skills, phonemic awareness, and verbal intelligence” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. 222). What is key is that these language interventions are not exclusive to students who have limited English proficiency or who come from low-income backgrounds; rather, they are beneficial for all types of students and abilities. Most importantly, however, is that the earlier the intervention, the better. Older children had less of a boost from particular language interventions analyzed. To make these findings more valid, it would be beneficial to conduct further studies with a larger sample size, a limitation that even the authors acknowledge.
In terms of instruction, the presence of literacy focused curricula and the amount of professional development provided to teachers significantly impacted current early childhood research. Though curricula is identified, there was little discussion on what pedagogies the curricula utilized, so more investigation needs to be conducted in that area. Another big finding is in regards to parental involvement and its impact on literacy. Though the researchers studied this, they realized that this is still a very new area of research with little literature available. Therefore, currently there is not “a clear, empirically proven best way to use this involvement toward improved literacy performance for young children” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. 199), implying that we need more data on this issue.
This study is a strong foundation for formulating ideas around access and impact in education. However, it does not necessarily answer questions to how to promote that. In moving forward, we need to investigate pedagogy and parental involvement so reading instruction and students’ early literacy skills can be improved overall.
For more information on the NAEP, go to the website at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/.
Raquel Ellis
Latest posts by Raquel Ellis (see all)
- Race and class impacts instructional decisions – June 14, 2014
- ‘High ability’ does not equal ‘high achieving’ – June 13, 2014
- Pop up books do not support emergent literacy! – June 9, 2014
- Uncertainty is a good thing – June 9, 2014
- Belief and practice – June 5, 2014