Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The relationship between home literacy practices and developmental trajectories of emergent literacy and conventional literacy skills for Korean children

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous studies with English-speaking families in the North American context demonstrated that home literacy practices have positive influences on children’s literacy acquisition. The present study expands previous studies by examining how home literacy practices are related to growth trajectories of emergent literacy skills (i.e., vocabulary, letter-name knowledge, and phonological awareness) and conventional literacy skills (i.e., word reading, pseudoword reading, and spelling), and by using data from Korean children and families (N = 192). The study revealed two dimensions of home literacy practices, home reading and parent teaching. Frequent reading at home was positively associated with children’s emergent literacy skills as well as conventional literacy skills in Korean. However, children whose parents reported more frequent teaching tended to have low scores in their phonological awareness, vocabulary, word reading and pseudoword reading after accounting for home reading. These results suggest a bidirectional relationship between home literacy practices, parent teaching in particular, and children’s literacy skills such that parents adjust their teaching in response to their child’s literacy acquisition. Furthermore, cultural variation in views on parent teaching may explain these results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It should be noted that the statement on children’s socioeconomic backgrounds was based on preschool directors’ knowledge of the neighborhoods that the children lived in, and parents’ education level. The information on parents’ income level and occupation was not collected in this research due to its sensitive nature in the Korean context.

  2. The words on the word recognition task included various syllable type combinations of 11 one-syllable words, 22 two-syllable words, 19 three-syllable words, and 8 four-syllable words. The number of letters ranged from 2 to 12. In oral Korean four syllable types are allowed (V, CV, VC, CVC) while additional CVCC syllable structure is allowed in written language.

References

  • Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowey, J. A. (1994). Phonological sensitivity in novice readers and nonreaders. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 58, 134–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, P. E., MacLean, M., Bradley, L. L., & Crossland, J. (1990). Rhyme and alliteration, phoneme detection, and learning to read. Developmental Psychology, 26, 429–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruck, M., Genesee, F., & Caravolas, M. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early literacy acquisition. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia (pp. 145–162). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, S. R. (2002). The influence of speech perception, oral language ability, the home literacy environment, and pre-reading knowledge on the growth of phonological sensitivity: A one-year longitudinal investigation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 709–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, S. R., & Lonigan, C. J., (1998). Bidirectional relations of phonological sensitivity and prereading abilities: Evidence from a preschool sample. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70, 117–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, E. Y. J. (1995). Confucian ethics in contemporary. Korean Culture, 16, 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, D. K. & Tabors, P. O. (Eds.) (2001). Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test-revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: Two sides of a coin. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. A., Shaw, D., & Bell, M. (2000). Home literacy activities and their influence on emergent literacy skills. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 65–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewers, C. A., & Brownson, S. M. (1999). Kindergartners’ vocabulary acquisition as a function of active vs. passive storybook reading, prior vocabulary, and working memory. Reading Psychology, 20, 11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foy, J. G., & Mann, V. (2003). Home literacy environment and phonological awareness in preschool children: Differential effects for rhyme and phoneme awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 59–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foulin, J. N. (2005). Why is letter-name knowledge such a good predictor of learning to read? Reading and Writing, 18, 129–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frijters, J. C., Barron, R. W., & Brunello, M. (2000). Direct and mediated influences of home literacy and literacy interest on prereaders’ oral vocabulary and early written language skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 466–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: P. H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, D. P., & Ahrens, M. (1988). Vocabulary simplification for children: A simple case of “motherese?” Journal of Child Language, 15, 395–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1991). Mother-child conversation in different social classes and communicative settings. Child Development, 62, 782–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R. S., Anderson, M., & Holligan, C. (1996). Knowledge of the alphabet and explicit awareness of phonemes in pre-readers: The nature of the relationship. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 217–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, G. E., Snow, C. E., & Porche, M. V. (2000). Project EASE: The effect of a family literacy project on kindergarten students’ early literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 524–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. (2007a). Phonological awareness and literacy skills in Korean: An examination of the unique role of body-coda units. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 69–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. (2007b). Cat in a hat or cat in a cap? An investigation of developmental trajectories of phonological awareness for Korean children (submitted).

  • Kim, Y.-S. (2007c). The foundation of literacy skills in Korean: The relationship between letter-name knowledge and phonological awareness and their contribution to literacy skills in Korean (submitted).

  • Kim, M., & Kwon, H. (2002). The differences in attitudes toward emergent literacy of children among teachers, mothers, and fathers in kindergartens and daycare centers in Korea. Reading Improvement, 39, 124–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeFevre, J., Clarke, T., & Stringer, A. P. (2002). Influences of language and parental involvement on the development of counting skills: Comparisons of French- and English-speaking Canadian children. Early Child Development and Care, 172, 283–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leseman, P. P. M., & de Jong, P. F. (1998). Home literacy: Opportunity, instruction, cooperation and social-emotional quality predicting early reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 294–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. L. (2000). Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 36, 596–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lonigan, C. J., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of a parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 262–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBride-Chang, C., Wagner, R. K., & Chang, L. (1997). Growth modeling of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 621–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metsala, J. (1999). Young children’s phonological awareness and nonword repetition as a function of vocabulary development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metsala, J. L., & Walley, A. C. (1998). Spoken vocabulary growth and the segmental restructuring of lexical representations: Precursors to phonemic awareness and early reading ability. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 89–120). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morais, J. (1993). Phonemic awareness, language and literacy. In R. M. Joshi & C. K. Leong (Eds.), Reading disabilities: Diagnosis and component processes. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morais, J., Cary, L., Alegria, J., & Bertelson, P. (1979). Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously? Cognition, 7, 323–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004). Early childhood education and care policy in the republic of Korea. OECD Country Note. Retrieved October 14, 2004 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/43/33689774.pdf.

  • Pellegrini, A. D., Brody, G. H., & Sigel, I. (1985). Parents’ book-reading habits with their children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 332–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purcell-Gates, V. (1991). Ability of well-read-to kindergartners to decontextualise/recontextualize experience into a written-narrative register. Language and Education, 5, 177–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raz, I. S., & Bryant, P. (1990). Social background, phonological awareness and children’s reading. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 209–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B., Mistry, J., Gőncű, A., & Moiser, C. (1993). Guided participation in cultural activity by toddlers and caregivers. Monographs of Society for Research in Child Development, 58.

  • Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14, 245–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarborough, H. S., Dorich, W., & Hager, M. (2001). Preschool literacy experience and later reading achievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 508–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1981). Narrative, literacy, and face in interethnic Communication: Advances in discourse processes. Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sénéchal, M. (2006a). Testing the home literacy model: Parent involvement in kindergarten is differentially related to Grade 4 reading comprehension, fluency, spelling, and reading for pleasure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 59–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sénéchal, M. (2006b). The effect of family literacy interventions on children’s acquisition of reading: From kindergarten to grade 3. A meta-analysis review for the National Center for Family Literacy. Retrieved January 5, 2007 from http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/html/lit_interventions/index.html.

  • Sénéchal, M., LeFevre, J., Hudson, E., & Lawson, P. (1996). Knowledge of storybooks as a predictor of young children’s vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 520–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sénéchal, M., LeFevre, J., Thomas, E. M., & Daley, K. E. (1998). Differential effects of home literacy experiences on the development of oral and written language. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 96–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E. (1983). Literacy and language: Relationships during the preschool years. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 165–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E., & Ninio, A. (1986). The contracts of literacy: What children learn from learning to read books. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 116–138). Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S., Chen, C., Stigler, J. W., Hsu, C., & Kitamaura, S. (1990). Contexts of achievement. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 55(1–2, Serial No. 221).

  • Teale, W. H. (1986). Home background and young children’s literacy development. In W. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 173–206). Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. London: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunmer, W. E., & Hoover, W. (1992). Cognitive and linguistic factors in learning to read. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 175–224). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walley, A. C., Metsala, J. L., & Garlock, V. M. (2003). Spoken vocabulary growth: Its role in the development of phoneme awareness and early reading ability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehurst G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehurst, G. J., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Payne, A. C., Crone, D. A., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention in head start. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 542–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H., & McMullen, M. B. (2003). Understanding the relationships among American primary-grade teachers and Korean mothers: The role of communication and cultural sensitivity in the linguistically diverse classroom. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 5, retrieved November 29, 2006 from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v5n1/yang.html.

  • Yoon, Y.-B., & Derwing, B. L. (2001). A language without a rhyme: Syllable structure experiments in Korean. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 46, 187–237.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Part of this research was supported by the National Science Foundation Dissertation Grant (#0545205) and Min Young-Chul Memorial Travel Grant by Harvard Korea Institute. Statements in this article do not reflect the position or policies of these agencies and no endorsement of the findings is either granted or implied. The author wishes to thank all the participants and their families in the study and the directors and teachers of the participating preschools. In particular, the author thanks Heesook Kim and Jaeshik Kim for their help with data collection. The author also appreciates valuable insights and input of Catherine Snow, John Willett, and anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Florida State University and Florida Center for Reading Research, 227 N. Bronough St. Suite 7250, Tallahassee, FL, 32301, USA

    Young-Suk Kim

Authors
  1. Young-Suk Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Young-Suk Kim.

Appendices

Appendix A

Sample means, standard deviations, and t statistics for testing differences in selected outcome and predictor variables at study onset for participants who contributed all four waves of data (n = 87) versus those who contributed only the first wave of data (n = 8). 

 

Mean (SD)

Those contributing four waves of data

Those contributing first wave of data

t-statistic (p-value)

Parent education

3.52 (0.92)

4.25 (1.5)

−1.51 (.14)

Vocabulary

34.02 (7.00)

30.63 (8.73)

1.29 (.40)

Letter-name knowledge

11.24 (8.99)

13.13 (10.27)

−.56 (.58)

Phonological awareness

16.59 (10.05)

18.25 (12.58)

−.44 (.66)

Word recognition

11.33 (17.75)

15.63 (17.83)

−.65 (.51)

Pseudoword reading

5.15 (10.86)

8.13 (13.17)

−.73 (.47)

Spelling

.98 (1.91)

.88 (1.13)

.15 (.88)

Appendix B: Questions used to measure home literacy practices in the study

      •     How often do you teach your children Hangul?

(1) do not teach Hangul at home (2) once or twice a month (3) once a week (4) 3–4 times a week (5) everyday

      •     Approximately how many children’s books are there in your home?

(1) less than 10 (2) 20–50 (3) 60–100 (4) 100–150 (5) more than 200

      •     How often do your family members read books, newspapers, and magazines?

(1) do not read at home (2) once or twice a month (3) once a week (4) 3–4 times a week (5) everyday

      •     How often do your family members read books, newspapers, and magazines with your child?

(1) do not read at home (2) once or twice a month (3) once a week (4) 3–4 times a week (5) everyday

      •     How often do your family members read books to your child?

(1) do not read to child at home (2) once or twice a month (3) once a week (4) 3–4 times a week (5) everyday

      •     How often does your child read at home on his/her own?

(1) does not read at home (2) once or twice a month (3) once a week (4) 3–4 times a week (5) everyday

      •     Approximately how many books (including picture books) do you estimate your child reads in a typical week?

(1) S/he does not read at home (2) one book (3) about 5 books (4) about 10 books (5) about 15 books (6) more than 20 books

      •     How often do you help your child with his/her homework?

(1) do not help with homework (2) once or twice a month (3) once a week (4) 3–4 times a week (5) everyday

      •     How often do you take your child to a library or a bookstore?

(1) do not go to a library or a bookstore (2) once or twice a month (3) once a week (4) 3–4 times a week (5) everyday

Appendix C: Equations for the second research question

The first part of the second research question was addressed by fitting the following model, for word reading outcome, for example;

$$ Log{\left( {\frac{Y{}_{ij} + \frac{1} {6}} {60 + \frac{1} {6} - Y{}_{ij}}} \right)} = {\left( {\begin{aligned}{} & \gamma {}_{00} + \gamma {}_{10} {\hbox{Age}}{}_{ij} + \gamma {}_{01}{\hbox{Home Reading}}{}_{i} + \gamma {}_{02}{\hbox{Parent Teaching}}{}_{i} \\ & + \gamma {}_{03}{\hbox{Cohort}}{}_{i} + \gamma {}_{04}{\hbox{Male}}{}_{i} + \gamma {}_{05a - d}{\hbox{Parent Education}}{}_{i} \\ & + \gamma {}_{06b - e} {\hbox{Preschool}}{}_{i} + \gamma {}_{11}{\hbox{Home Reading}}{}_{i}*{\hbox{Age}}{}_{ij} \\ & + \gamma {}_{12}{\hbox{Parent Teaching}}{}_{i}*{\hbox{Age}}{}_{ij} \end{aligned}} \right)} + {\left( {\zeta _{{0i}} + \zeta _{1i} {\hbox{Age}}_{ij} + \varepsilon _{ij} } \right)} $$

where \( \varepsilon {}_{ij}\sim N(0,\sigma {}_\varepsilon^2 )\hbox{ and } \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\zeta {}_{0i}} \\ {\zeta {}_{1i}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\sim N\left( {\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 \\ 0 \\ \end{array} } \right],\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\sigma {}_0^2 } & {\sigma {}_{01}} \\ {\sigma {}_{10}} & {\sigma {}_1^2 } \\ \end{array} } \right]} \right) \)

The second part of the second research question addressed the relationship between home literacy practices and each conventional literacy outcome after controlling for the three emergent literacy skills. The following model was fitted for word reading outcome, for example;

$$ Log\left( {\frac{{Y{}_{ij} + \frac{1} {6}}} {{60 + \frac{1} {6} - Y{}_{ij}}}} \right) = \left( \begin{aligned}{} & \gamma {}_{00} + \gamma {}_{10}{\text{Age}}{}_{ij} + \gamma {}_{20}{\text{Phonological Awareness}}{}_{ij} + \gamma {}_{30}{\text{Vocabulary}}{}_{ij} \\ & + \gamma {}_{40}{\text{Letter Knowledge}}{}_{ij} + \gamma {}_{01}{\text{Home Reading}}{}_i + \gamma {}_{02}{\text{Parent Teaching}}{}_i \\ & + \gamma {}_{03}{\text{Cohort}}{}_i + \gamma {}_{04}{\text{Male}}{}_i + \gamma {}_{05a - d}{\text{Parent Education}}{}_i \\ & + \gamma {}_{06b - e}{\text{Preschool}}{}_i + \gamma {}_{11}{\text{Home Reading}}{}_i*{\text{Age}}{}_{ij} \\ & + \gamma {}_{12}{\text{Parent Teaching}}{}_i*{\text{Age}}{}_{ij} + \gamma {}_{50}{\text{Phonological Awareness}}{}_{ij}*{\text{Age}}{}_{ij} \\ & + \gamma {}_{60}{\text{Vocabulary}}{}_{ij}*Age{}_{ij} + \gamma {}_{70}{\text{Letter Knowledge}}{}_{ij}*{\text{Age}}{}_{ij} \\ \end{aligned} \right) + \left( {\zeta _{0i} + \zeta _{1i} {\text{Age}}_{ij} + \varepsilon _{ij} } \right) $$

where \( \varepsilon {}_{ij}\sim N(0,\sigma {}_\varepsilon ^2)\,\,{\text{and}}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\zeta {}_{0i}} \\ {\zeta {}_{1i}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\sim N\left( {\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 \\ 0 \\ \end{array} } \right],\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\sigma {}_0^2 } & {\sigma {}_{01}} \\ {\sigma {}_{10}} & {\sigma {}_1^2 } \\ \end{array} } \right]} \right) \)

Note that while constant 1/6 remained the same for each outcome (on the recommendation of Tukey, 1977), the maximum score in the denominator change for each logit-transformed outcome. For example, for word reading, the value in the denominator is 60, for pseudoword reading 50, and spelling 20.

The growth parameters, γ20, γ30, γ40, represent differences in elevation in each outcome for those who differ by one unit in phonological awareness, vocabulary, and letter-name knowledge after accounting for the effects of home literacy practices and control variables. The growth parameters, γ01 and γ02, represent differences in elevation in the literacy outcome for those who differ by one unit in time-invariant home reading and parent teaching, after controlling for the three emergent literacy skills and control variables. γ11 and γ12, the interaction terms between the time variable—Age—and home literacy practices, examined whether the rate of change differed by the level of home reading or parent teaching. γ50, γ60, and γ70 represent interactions terms between the time variable—Age—and three emergent literacy skills, respectively, in order to examine whether the rate of change differ by the level of each emergent literacy skill. The residual, ε ij , represents the portion of child i’s outcome at age j that is not predicted by predictors in the model. The level-2 residuals ζ 0i and ζ 1i represent the deviations of the individual growth parameters from their population averages (final status and rate of change, respectively). Interactions between predictors and Age were not statistically significant, thus not retained in the model.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, YS. The relationship between home literacy practices and developmental trajectories of emergent literacy and conventional literacy skills for Korean children. Read Writ 22, 57–84 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9103-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9103-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation