# Presentation: 233807

## Programmatic Research on Early Literacy: Several Key FindingsIES 3rd Annual Research ConferenceJune 12, 2008

- Laura Justice
- School of Teaching and Learning
- The Ohio State University
- justice.57@osu.edu

## Acknowledgements

- Lori Skibbe, Ryan Bowles, Joan Kaderavek, Xitao Fan, Helen Ezell, Chris Lankford, Khara Pence, Roger Bakeman, Tricia Zucker, Anita McGinty, Sonia Cabell, Amy Sofka, Aileen Hunt
- Institute of Education Sciences (Grants R305G050005 and R324A080037)
- National Institutes of Health (NIDCD Grant DC04933 and NICHD Grant HD43204)

## Continuum of Literacy Instruction

- Learning about
- print and sound

**Early Literacy**Learning to read:
- Decoding

**Conventional Literacy**
- Reading to learn:
- Comprehension

**Reading Development**

**Continuum of Literacy Instruction**

**Major Transition**

**Major Transition**

## Some emergent literacy indicators

- Listening to stories
- Producing fictional narratives
- Acting out stories
- Writing one’s name
- Writing letters and words
- Pretending writing a story
- Pretend reading from favorite books
- Identifying major elements of a book (author, title)
- Naming words in environment
- Knowing the letters in one’s name
- Reciting all the letters
- Knowing some letter-sound correspondences
- Detecting rhymes
- Identifying alliteration
- Producing nursery rhymes

## Listening to stories (oral language)
Producing fictional narratives (oral language)
Acting out stories (oral language)

Writing one’s name (emergent writing)
Writing letters and words (emergent writing)
Pretend writing a story (emergent writing)

Pretend reading from favorite books (print concepts)
Identifying major elements of a book (print concepts)
Naming words in environment (print concepts)

Knowing the letters in one’s name (alphabet knowledge)
Reciting all the letters (alphabet knowledge) 
Knowing some letter-sound correspondences (alphabet knowledge)

Detecting rhymes (phonological awareness)
Identifying alliteration (phonological awareness)
Producing nursery rhymes (phonological awareness)

- Listening to stories (oral language)
- Producing fictional narratives (oral language)
- Acting out stories (oral language)
- Writing one’s name (emergent writing)
- Writing letters and words (emergent writing)
- Pretend writing a story (emergent writing)
- Pretend reading from favorite books (print concepts)
- Identifying major elements of a book (print concepts)
- Naming words in environment (print concepts)
- Knowing the letters in one’s name (alphabet knowledge)
- Reciting all the letters (alphabet knowledge)
- Knowing some letter-sound correspondences (alphabet knowledge)
- Detecting rhymes (phonological awareness)
- Identifying alliteration (phonological awareness)
- Producing nursery rhymes (phonological awareness)

## 
Focus in This Talk: Print Knowledge

Writing one’s name (emergent writing)
Writing letters and words (emergent writing)
Pretend writing a story (emergent writing)

Pretend reading from favorite books (print knowledge)
Identifying major elements of a book (print knowledge)
Naming words in environment (print knowledge)

Knowing the letters in one’s name (alphabet knowledge)
Reciting all the letters (alphabet knowledge) 
Knowing some letter-sound correspondences (alphabet knowledge)

- Focus in This Talk: Print Knowledge
- Writing one’s name (emergent writing)
- Writing letters and words (emergent writing)
- Pretend writing a story (emergent writing)
- Pretend reading from favorite books (print knowledge)
- Identifying major elements of a book (print knowledge)
- Naming words in environment (print knowledge)
- Knowing the letters in one’s name (alphabet knowledge)
- Reciting all the letters (alphabet knowledge)
- Knowing some letter-sound correspondences (alphabet knowledge)

## Individual Differences in PK

- (Justice, Bowles, & Skibbe, 2006)

## (Cabell, Konold, Justice et al, 2008)

- alphabet

- rhyme

- print
- concepts

- name
- writing

- grammar

- grammar

- vocab

- vocab

- Profile 2: 23%
- Profile 3: 24%
- Profile 5: 23%

## Programmatic Findings

- Efficacy Studies

- Feasibility Studies

- Effectiveness Studies

- Programmatic Findings

- Hypothesis Generating

- Hypothesis Confirming

- Fey, 2004

##     Observational Work

- To identify specific mechanisms through which children learn about print within the shared storybook-reading context
- (hypothesis generating)
- Focused on shared storybook-reading context based on rich theoretical descriptions to date

## Storybooks and Early Literacy Development

## Sample Studies

- Describe mothers ask about print and their relationship to children’s print knowledge (Ezell & Justice, 1998)
- Describe the verbal comments children make about print when reading “print-salient” storybooks (Ezell & Justice, 2000)
- Describe preschool teachers’ references to print for various genre (Zucker & Justice, 2008)
- Describe the visual attention children pay towards various aspects of storybooks (Justice & Lankford, 2003; Justice, Skibbe, Canning, & Lankford, 2005; Justice, Pullen, & Pence, 2008)
- Describe children’s verbal responsiveness to maternal questions about print on various topics (Justice, Mattingly, Ezell, & Bakeman, 2002)

## Some Findings

- 	Mothers make virtually no references to print when reading with their 4-year-old children (even for print-salient storybooks)

- Maternal rate of five types of print references
- when reading *Spot Bakes a Cake; *
- Ezell & Justice (2000)

## Some Findings

- 	PreK teachers use a greater frequency of print references (particularly to letters and words) when reading very print-salient books
- 	Rate of print references positively associated with indicators of quality (open questions, *r *= .63)

- Raw frequency of print references for three
- high print salient books versus
- three low print salient books;
- Zucker & Justice, 2008

## Some Findings

- 	Children make virtually no **verbal references** to print when they are read to by parents (even for print-salient storybooks)

- Proportion of child verbalizations
- focused on print for *Spot Bakes a Cake;*
- Ezell & Justice (2000)

## Some Findings

- 	Children rarely look at print when they are read to, even for print-salient books
- 	But – differences in print fixations (17 vs 7) may add up (gap of 4,000 fixations on print in one year of daily reading)

- Proportion of child fixations on print for
*The Very Hungry Caterpillar *and
*Spot Bakes a Cake; *Justice et al., 2005

## Some Findings

- 	Children look at print much more often when adults nonverbally and verbally reference print
- 	Differences in print fixations for print referencing style may add up to 18,000 in a year of daily reading

- Proportion of child fixations on print for various
*Spot *titles*; *Justice et al., 2008

## Main Hypothesis Generated

- Children’s contacts with print vary along a continuum
- Many children’s experience with print is at “little contact” end of continuum – at home and in classroom

- little contact				       much contact

## Feasibility and Efficacy Work

- To test potential causal mechanisms under controlled settings
- Feasibility/early efficacy studies may focus on determining whether hypothesized intervention *appears* to have desired effects, whether fidelity can be achieved, and what outcome measures are most useful

## Print Referencing Intervention: The Package

- Scope:
- print meaning, print organization, words, letters
- Goal attack:
- horizontal (within session) and cyclical (between sessions)
- Materials:
- trade storybooks with print-salient features
- Intensity: about 2-3 references per minute using:
- Comments and questions (verbals)
- Balance of evocative and non-evocative techniques
- Tracking and pointing (nonverbals)

## Scope and Sequence

## Sample Findings: Efficacy Work

- Large effects on print concepts and concept of word and moderate effects for PA when parents implement at home for 4 weeks (Justice & Ezell, 2000)
- Large effects on print concepts and moderate effects on alphabet knowledge when researcher implements in Head Start for 8 weeks (Justice & Ezell, 2002)
- Parents who *can* implement intervention at home can do so with fidelity and have positive feelings, but many parents attrite (Justice & Ezell, 2002; Justice & Skibbe, 2008)

## Gain Scores 

- Gain Scores
- (%correct)
- on 5 measures

- Justice & Ezell, 2002

**Example of Child Outcomes Study**

## Effectiveness Work:Study 1(PreK Targeted)

- Foci: effectiveness, implementation as moderator, child responsiveness, dosage

**High dosage regular reading:**
- 30 week business as usual reading program (120 sessions: 4X week)

**High dosage program:**
- 30 week print referencing program (120 sessions: 4X week)

**Low dosage program:**
- 30 week print referencing program (60 sessions: 2X week)

## Preliminary Findings: Cohort 1

- Daily reading vs Daily reading with Print Referencing

- Justice, Kaderavek, Fan, Sofka, & Hunt, in press

## Effectiveness Work:Study 2 (ECSE)

- Foci: effectiveness for SLI, peer effects, parent and teacher implementation, child responsiveness

**Classroom based regular reading, home based regular reading**
- (120 classroom, 60 home)

**Classroom based print referencing, home based regular reading**
- (120 classroom, 60 home)

**Classroom based print referencing, home based print referencing**
- (120 classroom, 60 home)

## Thanks!

- justice.57@osu.edu