Established & edited by Mara Moretti, Idalia Nuñez, & Brenda Román
Extended by Paula Benter, Craig Stephens, & Sandra Villagomez
Chapter 2
What are the skills and abilities of young children (age birth through five years or kindergarten) that predict/enhance later reading, writing,or spelling outcomes?
Abstract: The NELP document, provided by the National Early Literacy Panel, created a research synthesis of current academic knowledge to answer the question, "What are the skills and abilities of young children (birth through five years or kindergarten) that predict later reading, writing, or spelling outcomes?" (NELP, 2008, p. 2). The 2008 report suggests that early childhood implementation of the following academic programs, educational interventions, instructional approaches, procedures, environments, settings, support of individual child characteristics and support of individual child skill sets in the pre-school curriculum or kindergarten curriculum, especially for children potentially at risk for literacy development, could provide valuable pre-literary preparation and support positive literacy outcomes.
Primary Analysis
Primary analysis was conducted with the objective of identifying the skills that strongly predicted later conventional literacy skills. 
Findings
Summary of the primary report analysis
According to the NELP study, ten predictor variables met the criterion, and were identified as consistent precursors of later conventional academic success in reading, writing, and spelling. Of the ten variables, six variables were reliable, and these six variables continued to be predictive when other variables were controlled in multivariate analysis. The six reliable criterions were alphabetic knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid naming of letters and digits, rapid naming of objects and colors, “writing or writing name,” and phonological STM. Because of the rigorous standards used by the panel, including a relatively large number of peer reviewed, academic, and quantitative studies that included large numbers of children, the findings are likely to be highly reliable and stable (NELP, p. 67). The following variables are illustrated as having either a high, moderate, or weak, impact on future decoding, reading comprehension, and spelling in young children. (NELP, p. 78).
*see charts below
Predicting variables for Decoding:
|
Strong
Average correlations of 0.50 or higher
|
Moderate
Average correlations between 0.30 and 0.49
|
Weak
Average correlations below 0.30
|
|
Alphabetic Knowledge
|
Phonemic Awareness
|
Print Awareness
|
|
Write or write names
|
Oral Language
|
Environmental Print
|
|
|
Rapid Naming of letters or digits
|
Phonological STM
|
|
|
Rapid Naming of Objects or colors
|
Visual Skills
|
|
|
Concepts of print
|
|
|
|
Phonological NOS
|
|
|
|
IQ
|
|
Predicting Variables for Reading Comprehension:
|
Strong
Average correlations of 0.50 or higher
|
Moderate
Average correlations between 0.30 and 0.49
|
Weak
Average correlations below 0.30
|
|
Readiness
|
Alphabetic Knowledge
|
Phonological STM
|
|
Concepts of print
|
Phonemic Awareness
|
Oral Language
|
|
|
Rapid Naming of letters or digits
|
Write or write names
|
|
|
Rapid Naming of Objects or colors
|
Arithmetic
|
|
|
Concepts of print
|
IQ
|
|
|
Decoding Words
|
|
|
|
Decoding Non-Words
|
|
Predicting Variables for Spelling:
|
Strong
Average correlations of 0.50 or higher
|
Moderate
Average correlations between 0.30 and 0.49
|
Weak
Average correlations below 0.30
|
|
Spelling
|
Visual Perception
|
IQ
|
|
Invented Spelling
|
Concepts of Print
|
Visual Motor
|
|
Alphabetic Knowledge
|
Phonemic Awareness
|
Environmental Print
|
|
Decoding Words
|
Oral Language
|
|
|
Decoding Non-Words
|
Write or write names
|
|
|
|
Decoding Words
|
|
|
|
Decoding Non-Words
|
|
|
|
Phonological STM
|
|
|
|
Rapid Naming of Objects & Colors
|
|
Secondary Analysis
The secondary analysis addressed in the NELP attempts to define and clarify the relationship between the age of the child at each assessment for both predictive and outcome variables, and include the additional predictor variable of how much time had elapsed between the measurement of the predictor variables and the outcome variables in the original studies. This secondary study was done in order to determine if the time lapse and the child’s age at the time of the various assessments had any impact on the predictive outcomes concerning emergent literacy.
Average Correlations for Prediction of Decoding
The NELP panel found that the predictive relationship between a variable and decoding was similar in most cases no matter what the age of the students assessed. Two skills, phonological STM and visual perception, showed stronger relationships with decoding outcomes when they were assessed in preschool than in kindergarten. And "writing or writing name" showed a stronger relationship when measured in kindergarten than when they were measured in preschool. The table below shows the three areas that showed significant differences.
|
Average Correlations for Prediction of Decoding
|
|
Pre-School
|
Kindergarten
|
|
Phonological STM .42
|
Phonological STM .24
|
|
Writing or writing names .41
|
Writing or writing names .52
|
|
Visual Perception .39
|
Visual Perception .19
|
Average Correlations for Prediction of Comprehension
Analysis of the reading comprehension outcome showed a similar pattern to those for decoding (See table below). Phonological STM and visual perception skills were better predictors of reading comprehension when measured in preschool than in kindergarten. Alphabetic knowledge and oral language were equally predictive, and phonemic awareness was a better predictor of reading comprehension when measured in kindergarten than when it was measured in preschool.
|
Average Correlations for Prediction of Comprehension
|
|
Pre-School
|
Kindergarten
|
|
Phonological STM .51
|
Phonological STM .34
|
|
Oral Language .40
|
Oral Language .32
|
|
Visual Perception .41
|
Visual Perception .21
|
|
Phonemic Awareness .36
|
Phonemic Awareness .46
|
Average Correlations for Prediction of Spelling
The only variable that showed a significant difference when measured in preschool or in kindergarten was alphabetic knowledge. As shown below, there was a strong relationship with spelling when measured in kindergarten but only a moderate relationship when measured in preschool.
|
Average Correlations for Prediction of Spelling
|
|
Pre-School
|
Kindergarten
|
|
Alphabetic Knowledge .43
|
Alphabetic Knowledge .55
|
|
Oral Language .38
|
Oral Language .42
|
|
Phonemic Awareness .38
|
Phonemic Awareness .42
|
|
Phonological STM .40
|
Phonological STM .27
|
The secondary analysis indicates that there is little difference between predictive variables when assessed in preschool versus kindergarten. Each variable is equally predictive of later outcomes in reading, writing, and spelling.
In addition to measuring the effects of variables measured in preschool versus kindergarten, the panel looked at the impact of when the assessments were completed (kindergarten versus first and second grade). They found six variables alphabet knowledge, arithmetic, concepts about print, decoding words, decoding non-words, visual perception skills which showed a higher correlation when measured in kindergarten and two variables phonological STM and rapid naming of letters or digits which showed a higher correlation when measured in first or second grade.
Implications for Research and Practice
The NELP pointed out the need for further research in the role of oral language in literacy development (NELP, 78). The report found complex aspects of language; grammar, definitional vocabulary, and listening comprehension, were stronger predictors of later literacy skills than simple vocabulary knowledge. Future research is needed to determine which combination of literacy variables have the largest effect on later childhood literacy achievement. In practice, the findings emphasize the importance of providing early childhood instruction focused on alphabetic knowledge, phonemic awareness, rapid naming tasks, "writing or writing name", and phonological STM along a continuum to provide valuable literacy preparation.
Limitations/Frustrations
The first objective of the National Early Literacy Panel was focused on answering the question: What are the skills and abilities of young children (age birth through five years or kindergarten) that predict later reading, writing, or spelling outcomes? (NELP 2008, 55). The panel systematically examined the findings of high quality, empirical studies that evaluated these skills.
- Here the limitation arises, given that there was a lack of studies that have directly focused on the predictability of later literacy performance on the basis of early variables, and in other words, it was hard to find an adequate amount of studies.
- Then the academic jargon used to describe and present the findings is not teacher/educator friendly, it requires careful examination and further research on the part of the reader.
- Additionally after the first analysis was conducted in which the first question was attempted to be answered, a secondary analysis needed to be conducted to address some questions related to the age of the child at the time of assessments.
Other possible limitations of the NELP report are that reading/literacy is such a complex, overlapping system that the panel could only test the components of literacy that lend themselves to testing. While the NELP panel's conclusions are based on academic research, and they will no doubt help future researchers as to uncover more viable facts about early literacy, the panel report gives the impression that teaching reading should be a fragmented exercise. This is problematic, as there are students at risk who know the letters and sounds of the letter, they know the meaning of the individual words, but they can't put the meaning together in order to actually comprehend the text. These students have all of the pieces but they can't see the whole picture. This website reinforces the value of reading instruction in a more holistic manner and offers many successful programs that have a positive history of helping parents promote early literacy.
For more detailed information about this topic see:
American Educational Research Association. (2010). Educational Researcher, 39(4) pp.384. Retrieved from http://er.aera.net
**From Panel to Practice**
The following links will provide educational tools based on research findings of the NELP report to support parents, teachers, educators, and early-childhood professionals who are interested in the literacy development of children from birth to 5 years or kindergarten. It includes professional research-based articles, lesson plans, videos, etc.
|
 Home & Family Practices
The role of parents in the education of their children cannot be overestimated.
-- Mexican American Legal Defense Fund--
Video:
Print Awareness
Soon the time will come when your little one is off to school and learning
to read. To help make that easier for her, you can reinforce early literacy
skills now so that she's ready to read in school. This video provides some
tips to use at home.
Early Spelling
Brief description of the stages that your child goes through
during early spelling.
Lesson:
Make the Most of Read Aloud
Learn a few simple read-aloud strategies that can sharpen a child’s
emerging reading skills and help you have fun together with a
good book.
Article:
Read Aloud Strategies
It presents six types of scaffolds for preschool teachers’ use: generalizing,
reasoning, predicting, co-participating, reducing choices, eliciting. Videotaped
classroom observation findings of teachers conducting whole group read alouds
in their classrooms using any or a variety of the six types of scaffolds.
|
|
 Early Childhood Practices 
Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.
-William Butler Yeats-
Video:
Children's Animal ABC Sing-along
This is a song that children can enjoy while learning their ABC's.
Children's Sing-along Phonemic Awareness
Students sing-along engaging in both movement and phonemic sound
construction.
Lesson Plan:
My Amazing ABC Book
Children who are learning to read and write letters and words will
love making their very own ABC book.
Article:
Reading Alphabet Books
This study explores learning outcomes when kindergarten
children listened to alphabet books read-aloud by teachers with a
meaning or phoneme emphasis.
|
|
 Academic Practices 
Do not train children to learning by force and harshness, but direct them to it by what amuses their minds,
so that you may be better able to discover with accuracy the peculiar bent of the genius of each.
-- Plato--
Video:
Teaching the Silent E
In Responsive Reading Instruction, a reading intervention published by Sopris
West, teachers use a variety of strategies to develop students' understanding
and skills in phonemic awareness, the alphabetic principle, letter-sound
correspondence, sight word recognition, decoding, and spelling. Watch this clip
for a sample of "Teaching The Silent E Rule", one of the activities in Responsive
Reading Instruction.
Lesson Plan:
Building Phonemic Awareness with Phoneme Isolation
Students improve phonemic awareness through games and chants
that help them isolate beginning and ending sounds and connect
them with their written symbols (graphemes).
Phonemic Awareness Activity
Appropriate emphasis on phonemic awareness in reading instruction.
Article:
Phonics & Fluency Getting to Know Each Other
So how might a teacher use rhyming poetry to spice up both phonics
and reading fluency instruction? This article suggests a simple three-step
sequence of instruction: identifying the word family, working with the word
family, and follow-up activities for word mastery.
Name Writing as a Starting Point for Basic Reading Skills
Does alphabetic-phonetic writing start with the proper name and how
does the name affect reading and writing skills? Sixty 4- to 5-year-old children
from middle SES families with Dutch as their first language wrote their proper name
and named letters. For each child we created unique sets of words with and without
the child’s first letter of the name to test spelling skills and phonemic sensitivity.
Name writing correlated with children’s knowledge of the first letter of the name
and phonemic sensitivity for the sound of the first letter of the name. Hierarchical
regression analysis makes plausible that both knowledge of the first letter’s name
and phonemic sensitivity for this letter explain why name writing results in phonetic
spelling with the name letter. Practical implications of the findings are discussed.
|
References
American Educational Research Association. (2010). Educational Researcher, 39(4) pp.384. Retrieved from http://er.aera.net
Brabham, E., Bowden, S., & Murray, B. (2006). Reading Alphabet Books in Kindergarten: Effects of Instructional Emphasis and Media Practice.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20(3), 219-234.
Both-de Vries, A., & Bus, A. (2010). The proper name as a starting point for basic reading skills. Reading and Writing, 23, 173–187.
doi:10.1007/s11145-008-9158-2
Pentimonti, J., & Justice, L. (2010). Teacher's Use of Scaffolding Strategies During Read Alouds in the Preschool Classroom. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 37, 241–248. doi:10.1007/s10643-009-0348-6
Rasinski, T., Rupley, W. H., & Nichols, D. W. (2008). Two Essential Ingredients: Phonics and Fluency Getting to Know Each Other. The Reading
Teacher, 62(3), 257-260. doi:10.1598/RT.62.3.7
Edmonton Public Library. (2006, July 28). Preschool-Print Awareness [Video file]. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rusHO7MP_tI
ELMgroupSW. (2007, January 30). Teaching the Silent E Rule from RRI [Video file]. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxb5yYdXovk
Ledson, R. (2007, May 28). The Kid's ABC's at the Zoo [Video file]. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWAtPMsk8_Y&feature=related
IRA/NCTE. (2010). Make the Most of Reading Aloud. Retrieved from
http://www.readwritethink.org/parent-afterschool-resources/tips-howtos/make-most-readingaloud-30565.html
IRA/NCTE. (2010). Practice Writing Letters and Words. Retrieved from
http://www.readwritethink.org/parent- afterschool-resources/tips-howtos/practice-writing-letters-words- 30318.html
IRA/NCTE. (2010). Building Phonemic Awareness With Phoneme Isolation. Retrieved from
http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/lesson-plans/building-phonemic-awareness-with-120.html?tab=4#tabs
National Early Literacy Panel Report published by the National Institute for Literacy in 2008
http://www.google.com/search?q=NELP+report+2008&rlz=1I7GPMA_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.