Emergent literacy: An exploratory study of the effects of an expanded language experience approach

  • Carolyn Reeves
  • Richard Kazelskis
  • Penny J. Barr
Article
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

The authors explored the effects of an expanded Language Experience Approach (LEA) on emergent literacy skills of kindergarteners. Forty-four kindergarteners were randomly assigned to either an expanded LEA condition or a traditional LEA condition. At the end of the six-month treatment period, the expanded LEA group performed better than the traditional LEA group on the listening for information subtest (p<.05) of the California Achievement Test (CAT), and on other measures. A treatment-by-sex interaction (p<.01) on the sound matching subtest of the CAT favored the girls in the expanded LEA group. The traditional LEA group performed better than the expanded LEA group on the total alphabet skills subtest (p<.01) of the CAT. The results are interpreted as indicating that use of an expanded LEA is more effective than the traditional LEA in aiding the development of listening comprehension skills of kindergarteners.

Keywords

Literacy Skill Emergent Literacy Literacy Activity Letter Sound Emergent Literacy Skill 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Résumé

Les auteurs explorent les effets du programme LEA (Language Experience Approach) dans l’éveil des habiletés littéraires des enfants de maternelle. Quarante quatre enfants de maternelle ont été assignés de façon aléatoire á soit une forme prolongée ou à une forme traditionelle du LEA. A la fin de la période de traitement de six mois, le groupe prolongé de LEA a performé mieux que le group traditionnel dans la sous-épreuve d’écouter une information (p<.05) du California Achievement Test (CAT) et dans d’autres mesures. Une analyse de l’interaction selon les sexes (p<.01) dans la sous-épreuve de combinaison de son du CAT a bénéficié davantage les filles du group prolongé du LEA. Par ailleurs, le groupe traditionnel du LEA a mieux performé que le groupe prolongé dans l’ensemble de la sous-échelle sur les habiletés dans l’alphabet du CAT. L’interprétation des résultats indique que l’utilisation d’un LEA prolongé est plus efficace que l’utilisation du LEA traditionnel dans l’aide aux habiletés de compréhension de l’écoute chez les enfants de maternelle.

Resumen

Los autores exploran los efectos del programa LEA, “Language Experience Approach” (Enfoque de Experiencia Lingüistica) en las habilidades literarias incipientes de niños de jardín infantil. Cuarenta y cuatro niños fueron asignados, en forma aleatoria a, ya sea, una forma prolongada del enfoque LEA o a una forma tradicional del mismo. Al final del período de seis meses del tratamiento, el grupo sometido al enfoque prolongado performó mejor que el grupo opuesto en el sub-test sobre escuchar la información (p<.05) del California Achievement Test (CAT) y en otras medidas. Un análisis según la interacción de acuerdo al sexo (p<.01) en el sub-test de CAT relativo a la combinación por sonido favorecío a las niñas del grupo prolongado de LEA. Sin embargo, el grupo tradicional de LEA performó mejor que el grupo prolongado en la totalidad de sub-test sobre habilidades alfabéticas (p<.01) del CAT. La interpretación de, los resultados indica que el uso del LEA prolongado es más efectivo que el uso del LEA tradicional para ayudar al desarrollo de las habilidades para comprender lo escuchado en los niños de jardín infantil.

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

References

  1. Allen, R. V. (1981).Language experience activities (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, A. G. (1985).Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.Google Scholar
  3. Atkin, R., Bray, R., Davison, M., Herzberger, S., Humphreys, L., & Selzer, U. (1977). Crosslagged panel analysis of six-teen cognitive measures at four grade levels.Journal for Research in Child Development, 48, 944–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagford, J. (1968). Reading readiness scores and success in reading.The Reading Teacher, 21, 324–328.Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, M. H., Durkin, D., Nurss, J. R., & Stammer, J. D. (1982). Preparation of kindergarten teachers for reading instruction.The Reading Teacher, 36, 307–311.Google Scholar
  6. Barrett, T. (1965). The relationship between measures of prereading, visual discrimination, and first grade reading achievement: A review of the literature.Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker, W. C., & Gersten, R. (1982). A follow-up of the follow-through: The later effects of the direct instruction model on children in fifth and sixth grades.American Educational Research Journal, 19, 75–92.Google Scholar
  8. Beller, E. K. (1973). Research on organized programs of early education. In R. W. Travers (Ed.),Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  9. Bond, G. L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading instruction (entire issue).Reading Research Quarterly, 2.Google Scholar
  10. Bormouth, J. (1968). The cloze readability procedure.Elementary English, 55, 429–436.Google Scholar
  11. Bourque, M. L. (1980). Specification and validation of reading skills hierarchies.Reading, Research Quarterly, 15, 237–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carroll, J. B. (1964).Language and thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Chall, J. S. (1983).Learning to read: The great debate (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, C. (1972). Stages in language development and reading exposure.Harvard Educational Review, 42, 1–33.Google Scholar
  15. De Hirsch, K., Jansky, J. J., & Langford, W. D. (1966).Predicting reading failure: A preliminary study. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  16. Downing, J., & Thackray, D. (1975).Reading readiness. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
  17. Dunn, N. E. (1981). Children’s achievement at school-entry age as a function of mothers’ and fathers’ teaching acts.The Elementary School Journal, 81, 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Durkin, D. (1966). The achievement of preschool readers: Two longitudinal studies.Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Durkin, D. (1974-75). A six year study of children who learned to read in school at the age of four.Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 9–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Durkin, D. (1980).Teaching young children to read (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  21. Durrell, D. D. (1958). Success in first grade reading.Journal of Education, 140, 1–48.Google Scholar
  22. Fields, M. V., & Lee, D. (1987).Let’s begin reading right: A developmental approach to beginning literacy. Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  23. Flood, J., & Lapp, D. (1981).Language/reading instruction for the young child. New York: McMillan.Google Scholar
  24. Fries, C. C. (1963).Linguistics and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  25. Gibson, E., & Levin, H. (1975).The psychology of reading. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Goodman, K. S., & Goodman, Y. M. (1979). Learning to read is natural. In L. Resnick & P. Weaver (Eds.),Theory and practice of early reading (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Hacker, C. J. (1980). From schema theory to classroom practice.Language Arts, 57, 866–871.Google Scholar
  28. Haddock, M. (1976). The effects of an auditory and auditory-visual method of blending instruction on the ability of prereaders to decode synthetic words.Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 825–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hall, M. A. (1981).Teaching reading as a language experience (3rd ed.). Columbus: Merrill.Google Scholar
  30. Hall, N. (1987).The emergence of literacy. Great Britain: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  31. Harste, J., Woodward, V. A., & Burke, C. L. (1984).Language stories and literacy lessons. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  32. Heath, S. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school.Language in Society, 11, 49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heath, S. B. (1983).Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hiebert, E. H. (1981). Developmental patterns and interrelationships of preschool children’s print awareness.Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 236–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1985). Cultural literacy and the schools.American Educator, 9, 8–15.Google Scholar
  36. Humphreys, L. G., & Davey, T. C. (1983).Anticipation of gains in general information: A comparison of verbal aptitude, reading comprehension, and listening (Technical Report No. 282). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.Google Scholar
  37. Jeffrey, W. E., & Samuels, S. J. (1967). The effect of method of reading training on initial learning and transfer.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 354–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jenkins, J., Bausell, R., & Jenkins, L. (1972). Comparisons of letter name and letter sound training as transfer variables.American Educational Research Journal, 9, 75–86.Google Scholar
  39. Jensen, M. A., & Hanson, B. A. (1982). Helping young children learn to read: What research says to teachers. In J. F. Brown (Ed.),Curriculum planning for young children. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Educators of Young Children.Google Scholar
  40. Johnson, D. D., & Baumann, J. F. (1984). Word identification. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.),Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  41. Lee, D., & Allen, R. V. (1963).Learning to read through experience. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Lohnes, P. R., & Gray, M. M. (1972). Intelligence and the Cooperative Reading Studies.Reading Research Quarterly, 7, 466–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mason, J. M. (1980). When do children begin to read: An exploration of four year old children’s letter and word reading competencies.Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 203–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mason, J. M. (1984). Early reading from a developmental perspective. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.),Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  45. Menyuk, P. (1988).Language development: Knowledge and use. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.Google Scholar
  46. Michaels, S. (1981). Sharing time: Children’s narrative styles and differential access to literacy.Language in Society, 10, 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Muehl, S. (1962). The effects of letter-name knowledge on learning to read a word list in kindergarten children.Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 181–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ollila, L. D., Dey, J., & Ollila, K. (1977). What is the function of kindergarten reading materials? In L. Ollila (Ed.),The kindergarten child and reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  49. Olson, A. (1958). Growth in word perception abilities as it relates to success in beginning reading.Journal of Education, 140, 25–36.Google Scholar
  50. Olson, D. R. (1984). “See! Jumping!” Some oral language antecedents of literacy. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.),Awakening to literacy. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  51. Otto, J. (1982). The new debate in reading.The Reading Teacher, 36, 14–18.Google Scholar
  52. Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children’s comprehension of explicit and implicit information.Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201–209.Google Scholar
  53. Pflaum, S. W., Walberg, H. J., Karegianes, M. L., & Rasher, S. P. (1980). Reading instruction: A quantitative analysis.Educational Researcher, 9, 12–18.Google Scholar
  54. Resnick, L. B. (1979). Theories and prescriptions for early reading instruction. In L. Resnick & P. Weaver (Eds.),Theory and practice of early reading (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  55. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1984). Classroom instruction in reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.),Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  56. Samuels, S. J. (1971). Letter-name versus letter-sound knowledge in learning to read.The Reading Teacher, 24, 604–608.Google Scholar
  57. Samuels, S. J. (1972). The effect of letter-name knowledge on learning to read.American Educational Research Journal, 9, 65–74.Google Scholar
  58. Samuels, S. J. (1980). The age-old controversy between holistic and subskill approaches to beginning reading instruction revisited. In C. M. McCullough (Ed.),Inchworm, inchworm: Persistent problems in reading education. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  59. Sawyer, D. J. (1975). Readiness factors for reading: A different view.The Reading Teacher, 28, 620–624.Google Scholar
  60. Silberberg, N. E., Silberberg, M. C., & Iverson, I. A. (1972). The effects of kindergarten instruction in alphabet and numbers on first grade reading.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5, 254–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smith, F. (1977). Making sense of reading — and of reading instruction.Harvard Educational Review, 47, 386–395.Google Scholar
  62. Soderberg, R. (1977).Reading in early childhood: A linguistic study of a preschool child’s gradual acquisition of reading ability. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sulzby, E. (1980). Using children’s dictated stories to aid comprehension.The Reading Teacher, 33, 772–778.Google Scholar
  64. Sulzby, E. (1985). Kindergarteners as writers and readers. In M. Farr (Ed.),Advances in writing research, Vol. 1: Children’s early writing development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  65. Taylor, W. L. (1953). Cloze procedure: A new tool for measuring readability.Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415–433.Google Scholar
  66. Teale, W., & Sulzby, E. (1986).What works: Research about-teaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Google Scholar
  67. Venezky, R. (1970).The structure of English orthography. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  68. Venezky, R. (1975). The curious role of letter names in reading instruction.Visible Language, 9, 7–23.Google Scholar
  69. Venezky, R. (1978). Reading acquisition: The occult and the obscure. In R. Murray, H. Shap, & J. Pilulski (Eds.),The acquisition of reading: Cognitive, linguistic, and perceptual prerequisites. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  70. Wells, G. (1981). Some antecedents of early educational attainment.British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2, 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Williams, J. P. (1985). The case for explicit decoding instruction. In J. Osborn, P. T. Wilson, & R. C. Anderson (Eds.),Reading education: Foundations for a literate America. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  72. Wilson, L. C., & Thrower, J. (1985). Early childhood reading educators’ perceptions of reading readiness.Reading Research and Instruction, 25, 21–33.Google Scholar
  73. Wilson, P. T., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Reading comprehension and school learning. In J. Osborn, P. T. Wilson, & R. C. Anderson (Eds.),Reading education: Foundations for a literate America. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolyn Reeves
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard Kazelskis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Penny J. Barr
    • 3
  1. 1.Curriculum and Instruction department of the University of Southern MississippiPetal
  2. 2.Research and Statistics department of the University of Southern MississippiPetal
  3. 3.Petal Elementary SchoolPetal

Personalised recommendations