Tag Archives: emergent literacy

Race and class impacts instructional decisions

— by on — Leave a reply

Mertzman, T. (2008). Individualising scaffolding: Teachers’ literacy interruptions of ethnic minority students and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(2), 183–202. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00356.x

Summary

The article, Individualising scaffolding: Teachers’ literacy interruptions of ethnic minority students and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, discussed a group of teachers’ scaffolding techniques of interruptions during literacy instruction. Interruptions from teacher to student are a common practice, especially when getting students to learn how to read, but little research has been done to analyze the types of interruptions teachers implement, to which specific students that teachers are interrupting as well as what effect interruptions have on literacy development. Before the study was conducted, participating teachers were interviewed to determine their beliefs and approaches around literacy instruction. The study showed, however, that teacher beliefs often contradicted or conflicted in some way with actual instructional practice. A key finding is that with ethnic minority students, teacher interruptions were more frequent and were more often related to a phonics or accuracy issue instead of an issue related to reading comprehension.

Organization

A particularly helpful heading was “Research on teachers’ literacy interruption” (Mertzman, 2008, p. 187) because it allowed me to quickly go to that section to see what is out there in terms of this topic. There is not a whole lot of research out there, but something the author did write in this section that I was not too surprised about was that students in lower ability reading groups were interrupted more than students in higher ability groups (Mertzman, 2008). This implies, however, that if a student is in a lower-ability group, they will end up reading less on a daily basis than those students who are in a higher ability reading group. This made me quickly see the relevance of this issue to not only instructional scaffolding, which is the breaking down of concepts in order for students to learn, but also to the hot topic of ability tracking. This caused me to ask, if students read less in lower ability classrooms, does this mean that we should discontinue ability tracking? It’s a complex question, but one that I began to think about right away as result of this section.

Another helpful heading was entitled, “Overall patterns of teacher interruptions: more focus on word recognition than on text meaning” (Mertzman, 2008, p. 190). This told me right away that teachers cared more about phonics than comprehension. In other words, in this study, it was found that teachers felt that it was more crucial that kids could read the words accurately than be able to understand what they actually mean. This made me think of a concept that I am learning in my human development class, in that kids at this age are cognitively able to realize that words represent concepts, so it is crucial that we focus on both the pronunciation and meaning when kids come across words.

Contribution to the Field

One major contribution to the field of early childhood literacy and instruction is the identification of the types of interruptions that are implemented in classrooms. This allows early childhood educators to discuss these types of interactions with colleagues in order to be cognizant of them and improve upon them. The types of interruptions that teachers implement are: “student or teacher model, scold, praise, repeat answer, explain the right answer, focus on meaning, focus on word recognition and sounding out Convergent questions” (Mertzman, 2008, p. 191). Knowing what these interruptions look like in practice will allow us to study them more in the future, especially as there are positive interruptions that provoke student academic achievement and those interruptions that hinder it.

Data Collection Methods

This study was conducted through examining four different classrooms within the same school closely. It was made clear to teachers that the point of this study would be to analyze interactions between teachers and students, but interruptions were never mentioned in order to avoid the problem of participants being self-conscious about these types of interactions. Once teachers were selected, each teacher was observed for two entire days of instruction in order to provide context for student behaviors throughout the day. Then, the period of class that was exclusively devoted to literacy instruction was filmed. Immediately following the literacy period, the researcher interviewed both teachers and students that were interrupted. The filmed segments were then played back to the interviewees in order to get a sense of what thoughts and feelings the participant had behind that interruption. Then, transcripts were consulted in order to begin the data analysis process and the identification of types of interruptions occurring.

Findings

The key question that the author was trying to answer was whether literacy interruption patterns were different with students from different races/economic classes (Mertzman, 2008). Unfortunately, the findings were that yes, they are. In the interviews conducted before the study, teachers never once mentioned socioeconomic status or race as a means to individualize instruction. However, as ethnic minority students were more likely to be interrupted than their white, higher income peers, it seems that teachers do in fact consider race and class as a factor when making instructional decisions. Additionally, the fact that the interruption types were more likely to be a word recognition/phonics issue does not support a balanced approach to literacy (Mertzman, 2008).

New ideas this study suggests for my area of interest

The author made it clear that interruptions can be a powerful force to effectively scaffold a child’s instruction. As this study identified interruptions that would foster a balanced approach to literacy, I began to think of cues that could be taught to teachers during professional development. I thought how when I go and observe teachers, I can specifically focus on the interruption types, the frequency of them and to whom they are being given in order to come up with appropriate suggestions for instructional improvement. I also thought about how we can connect positive interruptions to the idea of helping students manage their uncertainty within the context of learning how to read.

Further study

It is important to note, as disturbing as the results of this study are, that this was a very small-scale study. Only four teachers were studied and the school was in a rural area of the Southeastern United States. Therefore, to get a better sense as to whether race and socioeconomic status impacts teachers’ literacy scaffolding, larger studies in more diverse settings should be executed.

Pop up books do not support emergent literacy!

— by on — Leave a reply

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.

Belief and practice

— by on — Leave a reply

Sandvik, J. M., van Daal, V. H., & Ader, H. J. (2013). Emergent literacy: Preschool teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14(1), 28–52. doi:10.1177/1468798413478026

Summary

The point of this study was to get an idea of what preschool teachers’ beliefs about literacy were and whether or not those beliefs impacted their practice. The authors of this study acknowledge that there is no question that the earlier literacy skills are fostered, the better, as there is research that links strong emergent literacy skills in the preschool years to later success as a reader. Essentially, this study demonstrated that training on a literacy development program for teachers more heavily impacts their beliefs about reading itself rather than instructional practices that foster literacy development. Beliefs and practice of preschool teachers were examined through a survey. Before conducting the survey, the researchers identified instructional practices that foster emergent literacy skills. To decide if these instructional practices were being implemented, teachers were asked about this on their survey. To determine what their opinions were about emergent literacy, they were also asked a series of questions. From the survey data, the researchers were able to determine that specific literacy trainings do impact belief about instructional techniques but do not correspond to changes in practice.

Contribution to the Field

The major contribution to the field of emergent literacy is that though training in emergent literacy programs may positively impact a teacher’s beliefs about certain instructional practices, the training has little to no effect on actual teacher practice.

Literature Review

From the review of literature, the authors discuss how there is disagreement within the early childhood community about the role of literacy. Some of this has to do with misunderstanding about what emergent literacy is. People are so fixated on the word literacy, that they assume that emergent literacy suggests that students directly need to read and write. However, the author’s define emergent literacy as simply processes that foster the ability to read and write successfully later in life. Additionally, the role of literacy in classrooms is challenged by “deep seated beliefs” (Sandvick, van Daal & Ader, 2013, p. 30) held by teachers. Those deep seated beliefs include uncertainty about how literacy should be carried out in preschool. Some preschool teachers do not believe that literacy skills should be promoted in preschool. Another challenging component is that research suggests that there is much ambivalence on the behalf of preschool teachers about what their role is in promoting literacy with their students.

Theoretical Framework/Lens

The theoretical framework was cohesive. First, the authors hypothesized as to why there was disagreement within the preschool educator community about the role of emergent literacy, based on the current research. The authors acknowledged that there is little to no argument about success in early literacy translates into later on reading success.

The lens that this study went through was that though there is understanding about the importance of early literacy, this does not necessarily imply that the instructional practices to support this will be in place.  This means that what teachers believe does not necessarily inform their practice.  In other words, a teacher can believe that it is important to promote early literacy but not have that reflected in their instruction.

Data Collection Methods

In order to find out more about teacher beliefs and practices, the researchers conducted a 130 item survey between two groups of preschool teachers: those who had participated in a literacy training program which promoted practices such as reading aloud and phonological awareness and a group of teachers who had not, the latter serving as a control group. The goal of the survey was to get a sense of teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about emergent literacy practices and what their actual literacy practices in their classrooms were.

Analysis

I thought the method used here was solid. A survey was given to teachers to measure their beliefs about literacy, what they did in practice and whether or not these practices were in line with current research. The only area of concern I see is with this approach is that I feel many respondents might feel inclined to be dishonest about their practices, particularly the ones who went through the literacy training. I cannot help but think if I went through training on literacy practices, I would be inclined to say that I do these practices because I am always seeking for approval, to be the star student, even though it would be made clear that this was going to be anonymous. Granted, the survey showed that beliefs did not change practice, so it seems like I would be wrong in my theory. However, I would love to see further study on what the impact on ‘practice’ or lack thereof is in order to get a firmer response. This might mean that researchers will have to actually go into classrooms during literacy instruction to see if any of those practices that they claim or disclaim are in fact being followed.

Findings

Though preschool teachers had moderately positive beliefs about literacy in preschool, the authors of this study contend that beliefs do not correspond to practice. As Sandvik, van Daal, and Ader (2013) conclude, “with the exception of Shared Reading, preschool teachers reported engaging in all other literacy-related activities (Emerging Reading and Writing, Letter Knowledge, Phonological Awareness, and Literacy in Play), on average, only 0-5 minutes per day on any given literacy-related activity” (p. 46).

Discussion/Conclusions

There are several conclusions to come to from this study:

  • Students need to learn about reading in the emergent literacy phase in order to be prepared to read when they reach school
  • Exploration by the child and adult-directed activities work in conjunction with one another during the preschool years to foster later literacy
  • Children need to engage in storybook reading by interacting with the text through retelling, asking questions, reimagining the text. This makes reading fun.
  • Phonological awareness is as important as storybook reading and can be made fun through games
  • Identifying literacy issues can be done in the preschool years and is encouraged. Interventions will be more effective the earlier they are identified.
  • Further research is needed on the identified literacy skills “can
    best be promoted in preschool” (Sandvik, van Daal, & Ader, 2013, p. 44).

In thinking about how some of our lowest income students might have access to preschool through Head Start, it is absolutely crucial that we are giving teachers the best programs and materials to teach our youngest students how to read.  Having teachers simply believe that literacy is important is not good enough to get our kids literate.  We must equip our teachers with the best resources and train them on how to use them in order to increase access to education through literacy.