Chiong, C., & DeLoache, J. S. (2012). Learning the ABCs: What kinds of picture books facilitate young children’s learning? Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 13(2), 225–241. doi:10.1177/1468798411430091
Summary
Chiong and DeLoache (2012) explored the question of “what kinds of picture books facilitate young children’s learning?” (p. 225). In the emergent literacy phase, which consists of children from zero to four, many children acquire literacy skills through the interactions they have with their parents and other caretakers. What the authors of this study wanted to know was whether the books being used in these interactions actually helped students in developing literacy skills. In order to explore this question, the authors conducted two studies with children ranging from 30 to 36 months of age. Children were given a normal children’s book without manipulatives and others were given a book that had them. The results of the first study showed that children acquired fewer letters with books that contained manipulatives, compared to those who read the standard books. In the second study, when manipulatives were directed toward actual letters themselves the researchers wanted the participants to know, there was no noticeable effect. Therefore, this study showed that manipulatives in books are a distraction to getting children to acquire literacy skills.
Organization
The organization of this article was very easy to follow. The article started with the abstract and an overview of the research out there followed by a summary of the first study, then the second and a discussion/conclusion. What was most effective about the organization were the subheadings present under each major section. For example, under the main heading for Study 2, there were subheadings that labeled the participants, materials, procedure, and results/discussion. Additionally, there were very clear images pasted directly into applicable areas, such as examples of what the different books they used looked like. I like that I did not have to go look in the appendix for this; the fact that the book examples were there allowed me to think about these images as I continued reading.
Contribution to the Field
This study gives early childhood researchers and educators an idea of what ineffective books for developing early literacy skills look like. From their work, we know that pop-up books are less effective in getting children to master the alphabet than your standard 2D book.
Theoretical Framework
The framework that this research is based on relates to that it is generally agreed upon that parent facilitation of book interaction in the early years is crucial to developing early literacy skills. It is accepted that learning the actual alphabet names and letter sounds in conjunction with one another is a best practice. The researchers cited a meta-analysis of the research about early literacy “that interactive shared book reading was associated with increased expressive vocabulary, especially for two- to three-year-olds” (Chiong & DeLoache, 2012, p. 226). However, it is still a large debate about how to best teach children how to read. Therefore, the researchers tried to further investigate the issue around how the content of the book that children interact with. According to previous studies, “the nature of the pictures with which [children] had been taught influenced how well the children performed in the tests” (Chiong & DeLoache, 2012, p. 227).
Data Collection Methods
In the first study, 48 children participated. Children were given three alphabet books, one that is standard, one that had 3D manipulative elements and one that was the same as the 3D books but the manipulatives were taken out. Children were tested on their prior letter knowledge and parents also completed a survey about how many letters their child knew. Then, an adult reader read the book with the child in which they heard the letters they would be tested on six times. Then, children were given a test on letter naming and on letter recognition.
In the second study, 64 children participated. The procedures were similar to those of the first study. In this one, however, some children were given books where letters were made of sandpaper. The kids with the sandpaper letters were asked to trace the letters and the kids with the normal letters were simply asked to point. Just like study one, they were given a letter naming and letter recognition task immediately afterwards.
Findings
Children performed worse on the tasks when they had the 3D book. This made the authors of the study conclude that manipulative books are distractions. As for students who had the sandpaper letters to trace them, there was no evidence that suggested that this interaction positively impacted their letter naming/recognition. However, with this particular study, the authors concluded that there was no detrimental effect of tracing a letter that had a sandpaper texture.
Miscellaneous
I think that this article would be beneficial for any parent to read. It is written in such a clear language that I think it could be accessible to many parents outside of academia. It made me think about my own self and my process in selecting books for kids. I always explore the children’s section of bookstores for my students and for my niece. I now am going to look at the ‘cool’ kids’ books at Costco and Barnes and Noble much differently. Essentially, this article sends parents and educators a really simple message: to look closely at what the actual goal of the book is. The goal should be to build a child’s literacy skills through practicing reading a certain set of words or letters. However, this article demonstrated that those things that may make the books seem ‘fun’ are actually just distractions and do not help kids meet the true goal of the book. Obviously, pop outs, manipulatives, etc. found in kids’ books makes the book more sellable, which is I am sure why it is done. However, it is our responsibility as educators to inform everyone we know about this problem in our children’s literature so that parents can focus their energies on books that will actually increase access and excellence in education.
New ideas this study suggests for my area of interest
I am interested in researching the best approaches to early literacy. In conducting my annotated bibliography, I have been focusing directly on reading curriculum and instruction. This article gave me the idea that my study could involve parents as part of the process. Perhaps I could think about what would the effect of giving parents a workshop on the ineffectiveness of manipulative books be? What if I did the same for teachers?
Further study
I think this research could definitely benefit from looking at what is currently in pre-K and kindergarten libraries. Are the books we are providing our students full of manipulatives? This also got me thinking about supplemental materials we provide our students. A typical activity I have observed in a kindergarten classroom is kids cutting and gluing letters onto a matching letter. Does this mean students are actually learning their letters or are they simply learning to cut and glue? Obviously motor skills such as gluing and cutting are necessary for students to master, but can the fine motor activities we provide for students replace the actual learning of their letters and sounds? I would like to know this to get more insight as to what the barriers are to getting our students to grow in their reading.
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