Distinguished Educator: The Role of Literacy in Early Childhood EducationAuthor(s): Dorothy S. Strickland, Lesley Mandel Morrow, Susan B. Neuman, Kathleen Roskos,Judith A. Schickedanz, Carol VukelichSource: The Reading Teacher, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Sep., 2004), pp. 86-100Published by: International Reading AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20205451 .Accessed: 21/06/2011 18:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ira. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

International Reading Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheReading Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

squished Educator

The role of literacy in early childhood education

In this year's Distinguished Educator department, we feature six educators whose research has focused on the role of early literacy in early childhood education. Each of the six addresses a vitally important aspect of early childhood literacy teaching and learning.

Working with families as

partners in early literacy

Dorothy S. Strickland

What the best and wisest parent wants for his own

child, that must the community want for its children. John Dewey

The link between supportive parental involvement and children's early literacy development is well

established. Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, and Hemphill (1991) and others have shown that

children from homes where parents model the uses

of literacy and engage children in activities that

promote basic understandings about literacy and its uses are better prepared for school.

Parent education is an integral component of

virtually all early childhood programs. However, its effectiveness varies widely. More and better re

search is needed to help us understand what kinds of parent involvement programs are most effective for target populations and what level of treatment

intensity, training of providers, and attention to oth er program components is required (Barnett, 1998; St. Pierre & Layzer, 1998). The following are some

considerations for planning the content and imple mentation of successful early childhood parent education programs.

Literacy learning starts early Learning to read and write is an ongoing

process. Contrary to popular belief, it does not sud

denly begin in kindergarten or first grade. From the earliest years, everything that adults do to support children's language and literacy counts (Hart &

Risley, 1995). Those who care for and educate

young children should know the following. First, oral language and literacy develop together. What children learn from listening and talking con

tributes to their ability to read and write, and vice versa. For example, young children's ability to

identify and make oral rhymes and to manipulate the individual sounds in spoken words is an im

portant indicator of their potential success learn

ing to read. Phonological awareness begins early with rhyming games and chants, often on a parent's knee. Second, children who fall behind in oral lan

guage and literacy development are less likely to be successful beginning readers, and their achieve

ment lag is likely to persist throughout the primary grades and beyond (Juel, 1988). Third, it is not

enough to simply teach early literacy skills in iso lation. Teaching children to apply the skills they learn has a significantly greater effect on their abil

ity to read (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). Young children learn the uses of print in their lives as they observe adults

read, make lists, and make use of literacy as they go about their everyday lives.

86 ? 2004 International Reading Association (pp. 86-100) doi:10.1598/RT.58.1.9

Key implications for parents and educators Know that a child's capacity for learning is

not determined at birth and there is a great deal parents and educators can do about it

(National Research Council & Institute of

Medicine, 2000).

Be aware that there are many informal and

enjoyable ways that language and literacy skills can be developed in the home.

Provide opportunities for children to use what

they know about language and literacy in or

der to help them transfer what they know to

new situations.

Oral language is the foundation

for literacy development Listening and speaking provide children with a

sense of words and sentences, build sensitivity to the

sound system so that children can acquire phonolog ical awareness and phonics, and are the means by

which children demonstrate their understandings of

words and written materials. Those who care for and

educate young children should know the following three things. First, children reared in families where

parents provide rich language and literacy do better

in school than those who do not. Language-poor families are likely to use fewer "different" words in

their everyday conversations, and the language en

vironment is more likely to be controlling and puni tive (Hart & Risely, 1995). Second, exposure to less

common, more sophisticated vocabulary (i.e., rare

words) at home relates directly to children's vocabu

lary acquisition (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001). Third, there is a strong relationship between vocabulary de

velopment and reading achievement.

Key implications for parents and educators Take time to listen and respond to children.

Talk to and with children not at them.

Engage children in extended conversations

about events, storybooks, and a variety of

other print media.

Explain things to children.

Use sophisticated and unusual words in

everyday talk with children, when it is appro

priate to the conversation.

Experiences with the world

and with print influence

comprehension True reading involves understanding. What

children bring to a text, whether oral or written, influences the understandings they take away.

Those who care for and educate young children

should know the following. First, the more limited

a child's experiences, the more likely it is that he or

she will have difficulty with reading. Second, there

are two kinds of experiences that are highly influ

ential to literacy development: background knowl

edge about the world and background knowledge about print and books. Both can and should be pro vided in the home (Neuman, 2001).

Key implications for parents and educators

Keep in mind that interesting concepts and

vocabulary do not emerge from a vacuum.

Help provide interesting content to think and

talk about.

Involve children in trips to local points of in

terest and talk with them about what they see

and do.

Establish a habit of raising and responding to children's questions about things that occur

at home or on local trips.

Provide time for reading to children and talk

ing with them about what is read.

Share a variety of literature, including lots of

informational books. Books stimulate con

versations about ideas and concepts beyond

everyday experiences.

Make books accessible for children to return

to on their own?to pretend read and reenact

the read-aloud experience.

Connecting with families to

promote children's literacy

development Successful parent education programs are sus

tained and consistent over time. They go well be

yond specific program activities to include strong

parent outreach in every aspect of home-school

Distinguished Educator 87

relations. Successful programs include parents and

the entire staff in an effort to connect home and

school. Everyone benefits from the sharing of in

formation and an atmosphere of shared purpose. Make special activities as specific as possible,

focusing on one concept at a time with plenty of

practical suggestions. Revisit key ideas and enlist

input about parents' personal application of those

ideas. Keep in mind that change takes time.

Initially, some parents may not get the "big" pic ture. Little steps are important.

Make parent education highly accessible.

Combine it with other services, such as health and

social services, whenever possible. Many families

are overwhelmed with the stress of balancing the

daily demands of work and childrearing with lim

ited resources. Be patient and flexible and keep in

mind that parents have a great deal to contribute.

Be sure to draw on their experience and back

ground knowledge.

Strickland teaches at Rutgers University (10 Seminary Place, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA). E-mail strickland@rci.rutgers.edu.

Developmentally Appropriate Practice in

early literacy instruction

Lesley Mandel Morrow

Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) has

been associated with early childhood education (pre school through grade 2) for many years. DAP em

phasizes the concurrent development of social,

emotional, physical, and intellectual growth. DAP

means that learning can happen spontaneously and

that teachers deliberately plan for teaching literacy skills (International Reading Association & National

Association for the Education of Young Children,

1998). Developmentally Appropriate Practice should

include intentional teaching of literacy in appropri ate ways. The ability to read and write will develop

with careful planning and instruction. Children need

regular and active interactions with print at a ver\

early age. This interpretation of DAP does not mean

extensive whole-group instruction, intensive

drilling, practicing skills in isolation, and high stakes testing. DAP means making academic con

tent meaningful. It builds on what children know

and then provides additional knowledge. Reading is

complex, and we need a variety of instructional ap

proaches to meet the needs of our diverse popula tion. The acquisition of reading is an active process between children and adults and other children.

Teachers offer explicit instruction when they mod

el activities. They provide guided practice when

children try out what was taught and provide scaf

folding when necessary. Finally, children engage in

independent practice when they work on their own.

DAP acknowledges that children have their own

time schedule when it comes to acquiring skills

(Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).

What does DAP look like? Developmentally Appropriate Practice in early

literacy instruction means that literacy development is evident throughout the school day. Teachers pro vide literacy instruction when spontaneous situa

tions arise. For example, some children were

anxious to talk about the hurricane that just hap

pened in their community. The teacher took the op

portunity to discuss the meaning of the word

hurricane and compared it to the word storm. She

made two webs on the chalkboard and put the word

hurricane in one center circle and the word storm in

the other. Then the class helped her list words that

defined each. The words storm and hurricane were

also added to the classroom word wall.

DAP includes thematic instruction when litera

cy and content information are integrated (Morrow, in press). If a class is studying winter, for exam

ple, activities are about information related to win

ter, and literacy skills are embedded in the

activities. The following is a plan for teaching lit

eracy skills using a winter theme.

Monday?Literacy skills development: vo

cabulary and listening. Activity: Read Ezra

Jack Keats's The Snowy Day (1996, Viking). Before reading ask the children to listen for

the things Peter does in the snow. Write the

snow activities on a winter word chart.

88 The Reading Teacher Vol. 58, No. 1 September 2004

Tuesday?Literacy skills development: read

ing pictures and identifying details. Activity: Share three different illustrations with the

children that provide information about win

ter. Discuss each illustration and write down

the information the children generate.

Wednesday?Literacy skills development:

clapping syllables and listening for rhyming words. Activity: Sing a song about the world

in winter. Clap the syllables in the words as

you sing. List rhyming words in the song.

Thursday?Literacy skills development: vo

cabulary and following directions. Activity: Provide children with dark blue construction

paper, bits of silver foil, and white doilies, cotton balls, tissue paper, and chalk. Ask the

children to create winter pictures with the

materials. Encourage them to talk about the

materials and their pictures while creating them.

Friday?Literacy skills development: hy

pothesizing, predicting, enhancing vocabu

lary development, and observing the teacher

writing. Activity: Carry out an experiment about freezing water and melting ice. Begin the conversation with a pan full of water.

What does the water look like, how does it

feel, what does the water do? Predict what the

pan full of water might look and feel like when frozen. Put the water in the freezer or

outside if it is cold enough for it to freeze.

When it is frozen discuss what it looks like and how it feels. Allow the ice to melt and

discuss freezing and melting again.

In the activities described, children are involved in

experiences that enhance reading, vocabulary, oral

language, writing, following directions, and knowl

edge about winter.

According to Developmentally Appropriate Practice, when children are learning in the early childhood grades, sometimes they need to be play ful. We want them to interact with teachers and

peers as they sing, listen to stories, and engage in

creative art and play. As they do so they will learn

vocabulary, acquire information, and learn con

cepts about print and writing. Paper and pencil in

play areas encourage children to write or draw as

part of their play. Set up these areas to include read

ing and writing opportunities (e.g., a veterinarian's

office with appointment slips, history and physical exam forms, and books for browsing in the wait

ing room). In DAP, teachers make sure that there

is a balance between explicit, thematic, sponta neous, and playful instruction (Morrow &

Gambrell, 2004; Neuman & Roskos, 1993; Vukelich, 1994). When teaching young children with DAP, we prepare activities that have a pur

pose, help to teach skills, are engaging, and foster

the joy of learning.

Morrow teaches at Rutgers University Graduate School of Education (10 Seminary Place, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA). E-mail

lmorro@rci.rutgers.edu.

The effect of print-rich classroom environments on early literacy growth

Susan B. Neuman

"Xavier is reading, and I don't know what to do," a mother announced to the director of a prekinder

garten center in a desperately poor neighborhood I was visiting. Far from boasting, her voice

showed great concern: "Other kids run around and

play with friends?all Xavier wants to do is sit

and read." She questioned whether such behavior was "normal" and worried that her son might be

come bored later on in school or, worse, be chas

tised by his teacher for learning to read the

"wrong" way.

Some might think this mother was overly anx

ious. But it was not so long ago that Durkin (1966) asked these same questions in her landmark study of the long-term success of early readers. Examining over 9,500 U.S. first graders in Oakland, California, and New York City, she found that approximately 2% of the population was already reading. At the same time, Durkin reported a serendipitous finding:

Although the median IQ of early readers was high, there was tremendous variation, suggesting that fac

tors other than intelligence must have accounted for

Distinguished Educator 89

preschool reading. In follow-up interviews, she

found that parents' support for reading and their

willingness to help, spend time reading to their child, and answer questions all contributed to their chil

dren's interests and abilities.

Almost 50 years later, our understandings of

early literacy have grown dramatically. We now

recognize that literacy development in its emer

gent forms begins even earlier than prekindergarten

(McLane & McNamee, 1990; Teale & Sulzby, 1986) and is supported by caregivers who may be

outside the immediate family. Today, over 10 mil

lion children (Neuman, 1999) receive some form of

child care for at least part of their day. But, given the prevalence of the achievement-poverty correla

tion, we hypothesized that many children, just like

Xavier, from high-poverty communities might be

early readers and, consequently, subject to a cur

riculum below their capabilities. For this reason, we decided to replicate Durkin's (1966) study by focusing on young children who attended child

care centers and were from poor neighborhoods.

Specifically, we asked (a) "Is there evidence of

reading precocity in high-poverty settings? If so,

how do these children differ from same-age peers who are not reading?" and (b) "What do child-care

centers do to promote early literacy?" Here, I

briefly describe our project and its implications for

classroom and home environments.

The study of precocious early readers

In 2000 (Neuman & Celano, 2004), we

screened over 4,050 children (ages 3-4) from four

high-poverty neighborhoods in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, following a two-step process. Using a preprimer word list (Johns, 1997), research as

sistants asked each child individually to identify words as a screening device. Children who read

more than five words were then asked to read con

nected text (i.e., Margaret Wise Brown's The

Runaway Bunny, 1991, HarperFestival). If they were able to read lines from text, they were identi

fied as early readers. A total of 43 precocious ear

ly readers were identified (26 girls, 17 boys; 30 African Americans, 13 Caucasians), approximately similar to what Durkin (1966) reported in her

study.

Following screening, the 43 children were giv en selected assessments to examine their overall

reading profile. Assessments included the follow

ing: the 1981 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test?

Revised, the 1981 Expressive One-Word Vocabulary Test, the 1990 K-Bit Brief Intelligence Test, letter

name knowledge?uppercase and lowercase letters

(Waterford Early Reading Institute, 1998), concepts of print (adapted from Clay, 1979, as cited in

Neuman, 1999), rhyming (MacLean, Bryant, &

Bradley, 1987), phonemic awareness of initial

sounds (Waterford Early Reading Institute), and

ending sounds (Waterford Early Reading Institute). At the same time, we randomly selected children to

be tested who were not identified as readers but were

similar in all other demographic characteristics.

We made a striking discovery. Children's abil

ity to read was related to skill development, not

aptitude. In each skill category, there were signifi cant differences between precocious early readers

and their peers who were not yet reading. But there

were no differences between groups in intelligence. These young, precocious readers had somehow ac

quired the critical components of early literacy

through their daily activities and involvement with

peers and interested adults.

How did these children learn

to read? We can only hypothesize how these 3- to 4

year-olds learned how to read. But interviews with

families and detailed observations of child-care set

tings provide some suggestive findings. Unlike Durkin (1966), we found that parent

involvement in poor communities varied dramati

cally. Some families living in especially harsh cir

cumstances had few resources, such as access to

books and opportunities for involvement. Other

parents, even though poor economically, had rich

kinship networks and could draw from family re

lationships to help their children. Sometimes these

kin would help the child regularly visit the library for story hour. Other times, an older sibling would

become the "designated" reader for the child and

help as he or she was trying to read alone. In no

instance, however, did we find a concerted effort on

the part of the parent or caregiver to teach the child

to read.

90 The Reading Teacher Vol. 58, No. 1 September 2004

Rather, in contrast to Durkin (1966), we

found that the child-care center made an enor

mous contribution to the child's interest and cu

riosity about learning to read. One-hour

observations, two times throughout the year, of

activities in these centers revealed print-rich en

vironments and contexts with lively conversation.

Often located in church basements, storefronts, or

rooms in old factories, caregivers supported early

literacy in many ways.

Print-rich environments. Centers included

writing tables, functional signs, and symbols that stimulated children to use literacy. Signs that had meaning for children (not mere dec

oration) helped to communicate the impor tant message that literacy was an integral part of daily activity.

A "Cozy Corner" library nook. Each center

had a place where children could sit in cozy, small spaces and read together. Often these

spaces included soft things, such as stuffed

animals, pillows, and dolls, so that even a

child alone could feel welcome to read.

Literacy-related play areas. Props, such as

memo pads, recipes, and cookbooks, helped children incorporate print in a very natural

way.

Interactive circle times. In contrast to being read to, children could actively participate in

reading aloud. Teachers would stop, ask

questions, encourage discussion of ideas, raise new questions based on children's com

ments, and generate a participatory role in

reading with children.

Interactive meal times. Teachers sat with chil

dren and engaged them in conversation dur

ing meals and snack times. Often this time

became an opportunity to have one-on-one

conversations with children, to hear about

their daily activities outside of the center, and

to connect their home and center worlds.

Small-group activities. Teachers would en

gage children in reading, writing, handwrit

ing, or math activities in small groups.

Observing our young, precocious, early read

ers in centers like these revealed a number of im

portant findings for literacy researchers and

practitioners. First, based on our observations, it

was clear that these children took advantage of the

environment and their caregiver's support. Interest

and curiosity about reading led children to choose

to play in the literacy-related centers and to choose

to read by themselves. Second, high-quality cen

ters, even in poor physical conditions, reflected

similar types of stimulating activities that were re

ported by Durkin (1966) in home settings. These centers, therefore, provided a critical safety net for

children who might otherwise not have access to

print and opportunities for engagement. And third, our study led us to recognize that the link between

low income and poor achievement may be vastly overestimated. Poverty is not a monolithic con

struct or a life sentence. Rather, it encourages us to

focus on the individual child and the talents and

gifts that every child brings to the learning event.

Neuman teaches at the University of Michigan (610 E. University Ave., Ann Arbor, Ml 48109, USA). E-mail sbneuman@umich.edu.

Early literacy assessment-Thoughtful, sensible, and good

Kathleen Roskos

My first encounter with early literacy assessment

occurred in the early 1980s when our Title I (a fed

erally funded program for at-risk students) team

organized a screening for all incoming kinder

gartners in a small, rural U.S. school district. We

set up "centers" in the school gym to assess what

we thought were basic readiness skills of our

young entrants. In a game-like fashion, we probed them: Can you write your name? What letter is

this? Tell me about this [a toy car]. Count the tiny

plastic bears. Hop on one foot, now the other. Walk

the balance beam.

In total, it took about 20 minutes to gather in

formation about each child's oral language, alpha bet knowledge, one-to-one correspondence, and

motor skills, not to mention a general willingness

Distinguished Educator 91

to participate at all. We conducted these screen

ings for several years in a row, but they were not

without dilemmas and controversies as to their pur

pose, appropriateness, and usefulness.

That was a long time ago, and our knowledge of early literacy and assessment has grown consid

erably in the intervening years, although it has cer

tainly not been free of dilemmas and controversies.

Why is early literacy assessment

important? The building blocks of high-quality early lit

eracy education include strong standards, appropri ate and fair assessments, well-built curricula, and

research-based instruction. There are two reasons,

one leading the other, why assessment in the

United States is becoming more important with

every passing day. The primary reason is the tremendous progress

in understanding the developmental foundations of

early literacy (National Research Council, 2001; Neuman & Dickinson, 2001; Snow, Burns, &

Griffin, 1998; Stanovich, 2000; Yaden, Rowe, &

MacGillivray, 2000). Research syntheses indicate

four developmental "drivers" of early literacy linked

to later reading achievement: oral language com

prehension (including vocabulary), phonological awareness, print knowledge, and print motivation

(Lonigan, 2004). Children's growth in these areas is

critical not only to their learning to read but also to

their general cognitive capacity to learn more, and

more complex, content (National Research Council,

2000, 2001; National Research Council & Institute

of Medicine, 2000). Assessment is the necessary means for systematically collecting and analyzing

information on children's literacy development in

these areas. Engaging in this practice (as an integral

part of our professional work) contributes directly to improvements in the educational services provid ed to children and their families.

The other key reason is the accountability that

comes with an enlightened emphasis on early liter

acy in early childhood. Solid evidence of the effect

of high-quality early education on children's later

academic achievement has created a strong push for

early learning standards and assessments that inter

face with K-12 education (National Association for

the Education of Young Children & National

Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State

Departments of Education, 2002, 2003; National

Institute for Early Education Research, 2003; Scott

Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2003). Pressure is espe

cially intense in the early literacy-learning domain

where U.S. federal and state funding is tied to evi

dence of the scientific research base in curricula and

evaluations of program effectiveness (e.g., Early

Reading First; Good Start, Grow Smart; Head Start

Child Outcomes Framework). Documenting results

and demonstrating improvements in children's liter

acy achievement in the early grades rest on quality assessment information from preschool through

grade 3. Thus, the need for "good" assessment data

is rapidly growing. Policymakers want data to de

termine what works and to identify gaps in chil

dren's early learning experiences. Parents and

teachers want information to monitor children's

progress and to make instructional decisions. Early childhood programs and elementary schools want

accurate data to establish a baseline of children's

strengths and weaknesses, to manage instructional

goals, and to evaluate their overall effectiveness.

Satisfying these many "wants" responsibly elevates

the importance of early literacy assessment during the early years of preschool and primary education.

What are the vexing issues? The issues surrounding early literacy assess

ment are not new to the field of assessment, al

though they are accentuated in the early childhood

context because the children are so young and be

cause the link between assessment and accounta

bility is a new and scary notion. Purpose is one of

the more problematic issues.

Assessments can serve varied purposes from

instructional decision making and identifying chil

dren with special needs to program monitoring and

accountability evaluations. Dangers lurk, however,

in the mismatch of purpose and tool and the misuse

of assessment results. Consider, for example, readi

ness screening for kindergarten. Its intended pur

pose is to "flag" children who may need more

assistance and further diagnosis upon entry to

school (Kame'enui, 2002). Yet it happens, unfor

tunately, that screening information can be misused

to judge children "unready" for kindergarten or to

place them in programs without follow-through as

92 The Reading Teacher Vol. 58, No. 1 September 2004

sessment (National Association of Early Childhood

Specialists in State Departments of Education,

2000). This screening does not help children learn

to read and write; it does not help them obtain the

instruction they need to make progress; and, sadly, it puts them in harm's way.

Let me be clear, though, that this issue of pur

pose does not hinge on whether we should or

should not conduct early literacy assessments. We

should (and must) conduct them because we pos sess scientific knowledge about literacy develop

ment that can help children. The problem instead

is how to ensure clarity of purpose and appropri ate, ethical use of assessment information for chil

dren's benefit. Addressing this issue in early

literacy assessment requires a "strong hand" on

our part to decide what structures and strategies must be in place in early childhood programs and

schools so as to first do no harm (Jones, 2004). In

this situation professional development is pivotal. Administrators and teachers need opportunities to

acquire the knowledge and skills to design and im

plement sound early literacy assessment systems that meet the needs of the families and children

they serve. They need real, tangible, everyday sup

port from knowledgeable reading professionals. Another issue involves the complexities of as

sessing young children. Granted, the literacy as

sessment of any age learner is a complicated business. But it is more so, many argue, when it tar

gets preschoolers and kindergartners (National Education Goals Panel Early Childhood Assess

ment Group, 1998). This is because their nascent

literacy concepts and skills are deeply involved

with other developing systems (e.g., physical, cog nitive, emotional, language), exceedingly unsta

ble, and thus more difficult to locate by means of

traditional standardized measures. To assess young children's literacy requires evidence gathered from

multiple methods over time in order to "see"

emerging skills and forming concepts. Moreover, it's much easier for young children to show what

they know (e.g., in play) than to talk, much less

write, about what they know and can do. Conse

quently, assessments should be embedded in activ

ities young children do or, at the very least, closely resemble them. Furthermore, unlike school-age children with built-up classroom experience, young children come to assessment activities with widely

divergent learning experiences?some having been

in family or home care, others at day care, and still

others in public preschools. Their participation in

assessment activity, therefore, is colored by their

prior experience with school-like settings. Some

children have far more familiarity with such set

tings than others.

The issue is made more complex by the design and selection of early literacy assessment instru

ments. Not only should such tools be psychomet

rically sound (e.g., reliable, valid), but they should

also be of clear purpose, age appropriate, culturally and linguistically sensitive, and fair. Growing con

cern about the assessment of young children has

led to several published position statements and

guidelines that include early literacy assessment

(e.g., National Education Goals Panel Early Childhood Assessment Group, 1998) In our pro fessional work we need to be alert to these con

cerns and positions so as to inform and influence

local early childhood programs and schools in

creasingly faced with the challenge of selecting

early literacy assessment instruments.

A third and no less complicated issue involves

assessment procedures and how they are carried

out in classrooms. This issue is all about logistics: Who? When? For how long? Where? At what cost?

Early literacy assessments have a variety of re

quirements for data collection. Some require a spe cialist trained to use the measure and interpret results (e.g., the 1981 Peabody Picture Vocabulary

Test?Revised), while others can be administered

by teachers with appropriate training (e.g., Get

Ready to Read!, Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). Some need quiet conditions where adult and child

work alone (e.g., rapid picture naming), while oth ers can be handled in daily activities (e.g., concepts of print). Some are short; others are long and re

quire extended time to collect information. Some

are more expensive than others. Considerable

thought is needed to ensure a realistic match be

tween the requirements for collecting early literacy assessment information and the setting's capability to meet them.

For early literacy assessment to be "good" (i.e., to benefit children, their families, and their teach

ers), reading educators need to come to grips with

procedural issues at a practical level. They need to

ask detail-oriented questions like these: How will

this assessment measure work in the school or

classroom setting? Is it affordable in terms of cost,

Distinguished Educator 93

time, and professional development? How well

does it contribute to a comprehensive picture of a

child's early literacy development and growth? What are the accommodations for children with

disabilities? The answers to such questions then

need to be carefully considered to implement ef

fective and efficient assessment procedures that

produce high-quality information.

What is an early literacy assessment system?

The growing need for norm-referenced screen

ing and progress monitoring measures to identify children at risk for reading failure and to track

growth in relation to instructional approaches argues for the design and implementation of an early liter

acy assessment system. The outcome measures of

such a system must indicate whether an early litera

cy program is helping children learn essential litera

cy concepts and skills. The fundamental complexity of a multipurpose assessment system is that no one

purpose can function in isolation from the others.

Rather, the different purposes of early literacy as

sessment must forge a linked system that is com

prehensive, integrated, and trustworthy (McConnell,

2000). This goal calls for the thoughtful considera

tion of several factors.

The extent to which assessment measures and

procedures complement one another across

the entire system is important. Screenings need to mesh with diagnostics that inform in

struction and intervention. These, in turn, must include formal and informal tools for

monitoring children's growth, and the salient

goals of these assessments must be adequate

ly captured in outcome measures to judge child achievement and program results.

Measures and procedures that can be used to

directly and repeatedly monitor progress to

ward desired long-term reading outcomes are

important (Fuchs & Deno, 1990). Instruction

needs to rest on more than the monitoring of

curriculum-based literacy concepts and skills

of a specific literacy program. It also needs

to be grounded in normative information

about children's progress in essential areas

of the early literacy learning domain (i.e., oral

language; phonological processing; ortho

graphic processing; fluency; vocabulary; and

reading comprehension, including early print

awareness). Teachers need to know, in short, where children stand relative to their peers and in relation to general outcomes in order

to plan effectively and to judge responsibly.

Valid, reliable, multiple measures are there

fore critical in a linked assessment system.

Yet, the system must be efficient and parsi monious in its use of resources (e.g., time). Not all of the children need to be assessed all

of the time. Rather, a sampling system can

be used (i.e., some of the children some of the

time) to obtain assessment information for

different purposes.

An overarching theory of action for decision

making across the system is very important to

pull together assessment information gath ered from multiple sources, settings, and

occasions. Without it, an assessment system can easily slip into a fragmented set of

activities?assessment bits and pieces that

are difficult to manage and use. A theory of

action includes principles that "balance the

need for information with concern for chil

dren"; adheres to the "best practices" of ear

ly literacy assessment (e.g., information

collected from more than one source); and

ensures assessment safeguards related to in

formed consent, confidentiality, sampling, and information management (Scott-Little &

Niemeyer, 2003, p. 10, p. 26). Reading edu

cators need to take a leadership role in help

ing to map a theory of action for early literacy assessment on the basis of strong principles, best assessment practices, and safeguards.

They need to help their colleagues determine

what early literacy assessment information is

needed and why, to weigh the options in a

given situation, and to plan for measures and

practices grounded in literacy development research and the professional knowledge of

early childhood.

Roskos teaches at John Carroll University (20700 N. Park Boulevard, University Heights, OH 44118, USA). E-mail roskos@jcu.edu.

94 The Reading Teacher Vol. 58, No. 1 September 2004

A framework and

suggested guidelines for

prekindergarten content standards

Judith A. Schickedanz

The standards movement in the United States was

launched in the early 1990s in response to The

National Education Goals Report: Building a

Nation of Learners (National Education Goals

Panel, 1991). Virtually every state has preschool content guidelines or standards, at least in draft

form. The development of content guidelines or

standards at the prekindergarten (pre-K) level is an

indication of the seriousness with which educators

have recently begun to view preschool education.

As several elementary school principals have said

to me, "We will never be able to meet the bench

mark (testing) targets, if we can't get children in

school by the age of 4. They are already too far be

hind when they come to us for kindergarten."

Suddenly, it matters whether we make preschool

programs available to children and also what we

provide in the way of educational programming once children are enrolled.

The first rung on the

reading ladder It is not surprising that many states view pre

school education as the first rung on the education

al ladder. As a consequence, many sets of pre-K standards for language and literacy, like the K-3

standards for language and literacy from which they have typically been derived, are heavy on literacy skills and fairly light on language skills. As scien

tifically based research interacts with state stan

dards, it is increasingly clear that this "first rung" view of preschool will not serve us well. While it is

true that lower levels of oral vocabulary and poorer overall oral language skills do not directly compro

mise a child's learning to read (Snow, 2002; Storch

& Whitehurst, 2002) and that literacy skills (i.e., letter-name knowledge, phonological awareness, and print awareness) do, low oral vocabulary and

poorer overall language skills begin to exact a heavy toll on reading achievement by grade 3, when text

demands increase (Storch & Whitehurst). Once be

hind in oral language, it is difficult for children to catch up (Hart & Risley, 1995).

A two-act play framework To develop guidelines for preschool content

standards that will serve us well, viewing preschool education as a stage for a two-act play provides a

more useful framework than viewing preschool as

the first rung on a ladder. The first act in the play is learning to read. The second act is sustaining that

progress from grade 3 onward. It is this framework

that was used to develop the list of pre-K content

standards for language and literacy that appears in

Table 1 on pp. 96-97. Although informed substan

tially by a review of pre-K standards from 13

states, the guidelines offered in Table 1 provide somewhat more balance between oral language and

literacy foundations than the pre-K content guide lines adopted by some states. My hope is that they

will nudge revisions of state pre-K standards in the

direction suggested by research.

Schickedanz teaches at Boston University (2 Sherborn Street, Boston, MA 02215, USA).

E-mail jaschick@bu.edu.

In search of highly gualif ied early childhood classroom literacy teachers

Carol Vukelich

There is little disagreement that the quality of a teacher affects children's achievement. The re

search most often referenced, though not free from

controversy, to support this claim is the "value

added" studies of Ted Sanders and his colleagues

(e.g., Sanders & Horn, 1994; Sanders & Rivers,

1996). This belief and these studies' findings beg

Distinguished Educator 95

TABLE 1 Guidelines for prekindergarten content standards

Area

Oral language standard

Student indicators

Verbal expression

Vocabulary and background knowledge

Listening (attention to and comprehension of talk)

Phonological awareness

Expresses feelings, needs, and ideas Uses language to maintain relationships with others Asks questions, explains, and gives directions Helps generate and maintain scripts in sociodramatic play

Uses new words from books in retellings and in conversation Asks for names of unfamiliar objects and their parts Asks "What does_mean?" when he or she hears unfamiliar word Understands relationships among objects (e.g., apples and oranges are fruits; socks and

dresses are items of clothing) Understands processes and properties associated with objects, animals, and plants

(e.g., plants and animals grow, rocks do not)

Responds to his or her name when it is called Attends to stories read aloud Follows directions Responds to peers' verbal cues in sociodramatic play Takes turns in conversations and relates his or her own comments to topic

Learns quickly to recite interesting-sounding words from texts (e.g., "oonga boonga" and "bunka wunka") and expresses delight in playing with such words

Thinks of a word that rhymes with a word the adult provides Thinks of a word that starts with the same sound as a word the adult provides Segments first sound in a word when a teacher asks, "What's the first sound we hear in

bird?" (Child responds, 7b/." Or, child says, "Birthday-/b/" when writing that word.)

Literacy standard

Area Student indicators

Print awareness

Print conventions and book handling knowledge

Letter-name knowledge

Alphabetic principle

Knowledge of text structures

Comprehension of stories

Asks what words in books and in the environment say Indicates meaning for marks created when writing

Holds books right side up Proceeds from front to back when browsing through books Knows the cover of book and that title or name of the book is there Runs finger left to right and top to bottom when pretending to read, or when reading,

print

Names many uppercase letters Names the lowercase form of all letters in his or her own name Finds specific letters in words in the environment (e.g., signs, book titles)

Attempts to sound out print in the environment (i.e., does not simply refer to it and give a message but tracks individual aspects of print and attempts to sound out words)

Attempts to sound out words to spell them (i.e., can isolate first sound) Makes statements such as "A is for acorn" or "B is for banana."

Names different kinds of texts (e.g., recipes, menus, signs, newspapers, greeting cards, letters, storybooks)

Relates events in sequence from familiar narrative texts Generates stories with basic story structure in dramatic play when relating recent past

experiences and when dictating fictional stories to an adult Seeks information from nonfiction texts

Names main characters when asked, "Who is in this story?" Retells a story by enacting roles in play Relates some main events when asked, "What happens in this story?" Relates book experiences to his or her own life ("I'm going to make angels in the snow,

just like Peter.") (continued)

96 The Reading Teacher Vol. 58, No. 1 September 2004

TABLE 1 (continued) Guidelines for prekindergarten content standards

Literacy standard

Area Student indicators

Comprehension of stories

Interest in books

Beginning writing

Links basic emotions of characters to their actions in story events Uses own experiences to understand characters' feelings and motivations Uses background knowledge to interpret story events

Chooses to look at books often Checks out books from classroom lending library Requests that favorite stories be read Looks at information books provided in the science or block areas Demonstrates sustained and focused engagement for read-alouds

Writes for many purposes (e.g., signs, labels, stories, messages) Uses class writing area and writes in block and dramatic play Writes his or her own name using good approximations to letters needed Makes mock and actual letters and experiments with letter forms

Composes and dictates or writes messages and contributes to class writing projects Experiments with word making by stringing letters together or by linking sounds in

words to specific letter names

Organizes writing in a linear fashion Includes both "big" and "little" letters in writing, even though use is not aligned with

conventions

Note. Based on state standards from Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

the question "What are the necessary and sufficient

components of an early literacy teacher education

program?one designed to produce new teachers

who are effective immediately upon their entry into

the classroom and know how to 'leave no child be

hind'?" Meanwhile, the U.S. government's key

question is "What, in teacher preparation, makes a

difference in children's achievement?"

To address these questions, teacher educators

and policy groups have responded with reviews of

the teacher preparation research. Few of the studies

in these reviews examined the preparation of litera

cy teachers, and none focused on the preparation of

early childhood teachers of literacy?a sobering

finding that identifies a significant research need.

Yet, these reviews raise important questions re

garding the preparation of highly qualified early childhood literacy teachers.

Subject matter knowledge The U.S. federal government's perspective is

that subject matter knowledge (as demonstrated by

earning a major in an academic content area or

passing a rigorous test) is the key to defining a

highly qualified teacher. Yet, research syntheses re

port only moderate support for the importance of

subject matter knowledge. Furthermore, the re

search focuses mostly on the teaching of mathe

matics and science and is inconclusive about

whether what's needed is a major or just some crit

ical number of courses (Allen, 2003; Darling Hammond & Youngs, 2002; Wilson, Floden, &

Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). What is the subject matter knowledge needed by

early childhood teachers of literacy? Standard 1 :

Foundational Knowledge and the related elements of

the International Reading Association's Standards

for Reading Professionals (2003) defined the subject matter that early childhood teachers of literacy must

know. The standard's elements include psychologi

cal, sociological, and linguistic foundations of read

ing and writing processes; language development and reading acquisition and the variations related to

culture and linguistic diversity; and the major com

ponents of early reading (i.e., phonemic awareness,

word identification and phonics, vocabulary and

background knowledge, fluency, comprehension,

Distinguished Educator 97

and motivation). Support for these as the required foundational knowledge elements is drawn from

current reading research summaries (e.g., Snow,

Burns, & Griffin, 1998; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000).

The rubrics accompanying the standards define

the level of knowledge needed by the various cate

gories of literacy professionals (i.e., paraprofes sional, classroom teacher). What isn't known

empirically is how much this particular content tru

ly adds to early childhood educators' effectiveness.

That is, do the children taught by those early child

hood educators who possess such foundational

knowledge become more successful readers and

writers than children taught by early childhood ed

ucators with only a little or none of this knowl

edge? For each element, what is the "value added"

to early childhood educators' effectiveness?

Pedagogical knowledge Teacher preparation research "lends limited

support to the conclusion that coursework in edu

cation can contribute to effective teaching" (Allen,

2003, p. 31), although there is a strong belief that

some pedagogical knowledge is necessary for ef

fective teaching. This literature, however, does not

define the specific pedagogical skills necessary to

be an effective teacher, and?as with subject matter

knowledge?the subjects in the majority of the

studies were high school or middle school mathe

matics or science teachers.

Though the research base is very modest on the

effect teachers' pedagogical knowledge has on stu

dent achievement, teacher educators and teachers

strongly believe that teacher education candidates

need to have and be able to use various kinds of

pedagogical knowledge and skills. Three of the five

standards for reading professionals (International

Reading Association, 2003) focus on the teaching of literacy knowledge: instructional strategies and

curriculum materials; assessment, diagnosis, and

evaluation; and creation of a literate environment.

For each standard's elements, the Association de

scribes the kinds of knowledge each category of

reading professional must have and be able to use.

For example, early educator childhood classroom

teachers need to know how to use a wide range of

instructional practices, approaches, and methods for

young learners from differing cultural and linguistic

backgrounds (Standard 2). But which instructional strategies, approaches,

and methods must teachers of early literacy know

and be able to do? Or which "appropriate formal

and informal assessments" do early childhood

classroom teachers need to be able to administer

(International Reading Association, 2003, p. 15)? The Standards for Reading Professionals do not

give answers. Teacher educators are left to investi

gate the latest research and to understand which

early literacy instructional practices, approaches, and methods make a difference to young children's

success as readers and writers. The early childhood

literature is growing with the identification of the

skills young children need to be successful readers

and writers (see, for example, Judith Schickedanz's

Table 1 or the list of skills prekindergarten chil

dren should demonstrate in Snow, Burns, &

Griffin, 1998). However, the literature is less clear

on research-based methods for teaching young children the needed literacy skills?particularly if

the research is held to the rigorous scientifically based criteria set forth by the U.S. Department of

Education's Institute of Education Sciences (2003). More often than not, the literature suggests the use

of "developmentally appropriate" strategies, with

out reference to the research base supporting the

use of such an approach or method in teaching the

particular literacy skill.

What does all this suggest? There is a desperate need for more and better re

search on how to prepare early childhood teachers

who can make a difference?specifically a differ

ence in student achievement. In today's climate, stu

dent achievement is what matters most, not changes in teacher candidates' attitudes or beliefs or in their

foundational or pedagogical knowledge. The

Standards for Reading Professionals (International

Reading Association, 2003) provide a beginning.

Now, we must use rigorous scientifically based re

search procedures to determine the efficacy of these

standards and elements in producing early literacy teachers who make a difference in children's lives

as readers and writers.

98 The Reading Teacher Vol. 58, No. 1 September 2004

Vukelich directs the Delaware Center for Teacher Education at the University of Delaware (Room 201,16 W. Main Street, Newark, DE 19716-2999, USA).

References

Allen, M.B. (2003). Eight questions on teacher preparation: What does the research say? Denver, CO: Education

Commission of the States.

Barnett, W.S. (1998). Long-term effects on cognitive devel

opment and school success. In W.S. Barnett & S.S.

Boocock (Eds.), Early care and education for children in

poverty (pp. 11-44). Albany: State University of New York

Press

Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining "high

ly qualified teachers": What does "scientifically-based research" actually tell us? Educational Researcher,

3/(9), 13-25.

Dickinson, D.K., & Tabors, P.O. (2001). Beginning literacy with language. Baltimore: Brookes.

Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1990). Paradigmatic distinctions

between instructional^ relevant measurement models.

Exceptional Children, 57,488-499.

Hart, T.R., & Risley, B. (1995). Meaningful differences in the

early experience of young American children. Baltimore:

Brookes.

International Reading Association. (2003). Standards for

reading professionals. Newark, DE: Author. International Reading Association & National Association

for the Education of Young Children. (1998). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Johns, J. (1997). Basic reading inventory (7th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

Jones, J. (2004). Early literacy assessment systems: Essential elements. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/

research/pic/earlylit.pdf Juel, C. (I988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal

study of fifty-four children from first through fourth

grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,437-447. Kame'enui, E. (2002). An analysis of reading assessment in

struments for K-3. Retrieved from http://novel.nifl.gov/ nifl/partnershipforreading/publications/pdf/assess ment/assessmentDocument.pdf

Lonigan, C. (2004). Getting ready to read: Emergent litera

cy and family literacy. In B. Wasik (Ed.), Family literacy programs: Current status and future directions (pp. 55-83). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

MacLean, M., Bryant, P., & Bradley, L (1987). Rhymes, nurs

ery rhymes, and reading in early childhood. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 33,255-281.

McConnell, S. (2000). Assessment in early intervention and

early childhood special education: Building on the past to

project into our future. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(1), 43-48.

McLane, J.B., & McNamee, G. (1990). Early literacy.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Morrow, L.M. (in press). Literacy development in the early years: Helping children read and write (5th ed.). Boston:

Allyn & Bacon.

Morrow, L.M., & Gambrell, L.B. (2004). Using children's lit

erature in preschool: Comprehending and enjoying books. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

National Association for the Education of Young Children &

National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in

State Departments of Education. (2002). Early learning standards: Creating the conditions for success. Retrieved

from http.7/www.naevc.org/resources/position,state ments/creating_conditions.asp

National Association for the Education of Young Children & National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. (2003). Early childhood

curriculum, child assessment and program evaluation:

Building an accountable and effective system for chil dren birth through age eight Retrieved from http://

www.naeyc.org/resources/position statements/CAPEex

pand.pdf National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State

Departments of Education. (2000). Si/7/ unacceptable trends in kindergarten entry and placement. Retrieved from http://ericps.crc.uiuc.edu/naecs/position/trends 2000.html

National Education Goals Panel. (1991). The national educa tion goals report: Building a nation of learners. Washing ton, DC: Author.

National Education Goals Panel Early Childhood Assessment

Group. (1998). Principles and recommendations for ear

ly childhood assessments. Retrieved from http://www. negp.gov/reports/prinrec.pdf

National Institute for Early Education Research. (2003). Child outcome standards in preschool programs: What are standards; what is needed to make them work? Retrieved from http://www.nieer.org/resources/policv

briefs/5.pdf National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

(2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implica tions for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00

4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain,

mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press. National Research Council. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating

our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

Distinguished Educator 99

Neuman, S.B. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 286-312. doi:10.1598/RRQ.34.3.3

Neuman, S.B. (2001). The role of knowledge in early literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 36,468-475. doi:10.1598/ RRQ.36.4.6

Neuman, S.B., & Celano, D. (2004). Children who read early in low-income communities: A replication study. Unpublished manuscript.

Neuman, S.B., & Dickinson, D. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of

early literacy research. New York: Guilford.

Neuman, S.B., & Roskos, K. (1993). Access to print for chil dren of poverty: Differential effects of adult mediation and literacy-enriched play settings on environmental and functional print tasks. American Educational Research

Journal, 30,95-122.

Sanders, W.L., & Horn, S.P. (1994). The Tennessee Value Added Assessment System (TVAAS): Mixed-model

methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8,299-311.

Sanders, W.L., & Rivers, J.C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achieve

ment Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

Scott-Little, C, Kagan, S.L, & Frelow, V.S. (2003). Standards for preschool children's learning and devel

opment: Who has standards, how were they developed, and how are they used? Retrieved from http://www. serve.org/ downloads/full2print.doc

Scott-Little, C, & Niemeyer, J. (2003). Assessing kinder

garten children: What school systems need to know. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/html/offsite.asp7doc ument=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eserve%2Eorg%2F publications%2Frdakcg%2Epdf

Snow, CE. (2002). Ensuring reading success for African American children. In B. Bowman (Ed.), Love to read (pp. 17-30). Washington, DC: National Black Child Development Institute.

Snow, CE., Barnes, W.S., Chandler, J., Goodman, J.F., &

Hemphill, L. (1991). Unfulfilled expectations: Home and

school influences on literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Snow, CE., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing read

ing difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Stanovich, K.E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford.

Storch, S.A., & Whitehurst, GJ. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a lon

gitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38,934-947.

St. Pierre, R.G., & Layzer, J.I. (1998). Improving the life chances of children in poverty: Assumptions and what we have learned. Social Policy Report, 12(A), 1-25.

Teale, W., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing and

reading. Norwood, N J: Ablex. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education

Sciences. (2003). Identifying and implementing educa tional practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user

friendly guide. Washington, DC: Author.

Vukelich, C (1994). Effects of play interventions on young children's reading of environmental print. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9,153-170.

Waterford Early Reading Institute. (1998). Kindergarten Reading Inventory: Test of pre-Hteracy skills. New York: Pearson.

Whitehurst, G.J., & Lonigan, C (2001). Get ready to read! An early literacy manual: Screening tool, activities and resources. Columbus, OH: Pearson.

Wilson, S., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher

preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and rec

ommendations. Chapel Hill, NC: The Southeast Center for Teacher Quality.

Yaden, D., Rowe, D.W., & MacGillivray, L. (2000). Emergent literacy: A matter (polyphony) of perspectives. In M.L.

Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),

Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 425-454).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

100 The Reading Teacher Vol. 58, No. 1 September 2004