Child Care & Early Education

R E S E A R C H C O N N E C T I O N S

LITERATURE REVIEW
September 2003
ABOUT THE PROJECT

Child Care and Early Education Research

Connections (CCEERC) promotes high quality
research in child care and early education and
the use of that research in policymaking. Our
vision is that children are well cared for and
have rich learning experiences, and their
PROMOTING LANGUAGE AND
families are supported and able to work.

Research Connections is a partnership among

LITERACY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD
the National Center for Children in Poverty at
the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia CARE AND EDUCATION SETTINGS
University, the Inter-university Consortium for
Political and Social Research at the Institute By Tamara Halle, Julia Calkins, Daniel Berry and Rosalind Johnson, Child Trends
for Social Research, University of Michigan, and
the Child Care Bureau, Administration for
Children and Families of the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services.

CONTACTS

National Center for Children in Poverty

Mailman School of Public Health
Columbia University
215 West 125th Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10027-4426

Inter-university Consortium for Political

and Social Research
Institute for Social Research
University of Michigan
426 Thompson Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Child Care Bureau

Administration for Children and Families
What We Know
U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services
䊳 Research findings suggest that a variety of targeted strategies succeed in
Switzer Building, Room 2046
330 C Street, SW improving children’s language and literacy skills during the preschool
Washington, DC 20447 years and beyond:
▪ reading aloud to children in an interactive style (either one-on-one, or in
The Child Care Bureau (CCB) was created small groups)
January 11, 1995, to provide a central focus ▪ phonological skill development
for federal child care programs. CCB is ▪ increasing the amount and quality of environmental print in early
dedicated to enhancing the quality, affordability,
childhood settings.
and availability of child care for all families.
䊳 Current research cannot help us determine which approach works the best
For more information, send an e-mail to: or better than another. Studies indicate that there is not one approach that
contact@[Link]
seems to work best for all children, but that various approaches can
achieve positive results.
䊳 Joint book reading is one activity that has been shown to promote language
Child Care and Early Education
and literacy development across multiple domains—vocabulary growth, print
Research Connections (CCEERC)
awareness, enjoyment of reading, and even children’s writing abilities.
[Link]
 C h i l d C a r e a n d E a r l y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o n n e c t i o n s

INTRODUCTION WHAT IS EMERGENT LITERACY?

Although literacy development occurs throughout a Emergent literacy refers to the earliest signs of inter-
lifetime, the early childhood years are crucial for est in and abilities related to reading and writing
laying a foundation for learning to read and write (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). These early knowl-
(Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2002). Studies have re- edge and skills are the precursors for the development
vealed stability from children’s skills at school entry of literacy; that is, they precede conventional reading
to later academic outcomes, and children who enter and writing (Teale & Sulzby, 1986). Researchers in
school with poor language and other pre-reading the field agree that emergent literacy is made up of
skills can have a hard time ever catching up (Kurdek several key components. One important component
& Sinclair, 2000; La Paro & Pianta, 2000; Reynolds of emergent literacy is phonemic awareness, which is
& Bezruczko, 1993). Furthermore, experiences at an understanding that speech is composed of units,
home and in child care and other early childhood such as words, syllables, and sounds, and the ability
classroom settings contribute significantly to young to perceive and manipulate the units of speech (Gunn,
children’s language and emergent literacy abilities. Simmons, & Kameenui, 2000). Phonemic awareness
Due to the pivotal role of children’s early environ- is part of a larger understanding of the sound patterns
ments in the development of pre-reading abilities, it in a language, referred to as phonological awareness
is important to consult the research on interventions or phonological knowledge. Another important skill
and curricula that have been designed specifically to is knowledge of the letters of the alphabet and their
promote children’s language and literacy development corresponding sounds, often referred to as the alpha-
in child care and other early education settings. The betic principle (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998).
analytical table accompanying this review summa- Awareness of print is also thought to be important
rizes findings from studies of such interventions. and includes the understanding that print represents
([Link]/location/ccrca2797) the meaning of a story, printed words correspond to
spoken words, and print moves in a particular direc-
This literature review was designed to examine
tion on a page—for instance, in English, print moves
the existing research on promoting language and
from left to right and top to bottom, while in He-
literacy development in early childhood care and
brew it moves from right to left and top to bottom
education settings. It provides definitions of emer-
(Gunn et al., 2000). Another component of emergent
gent literacy, summaries of important syntheses that
literacy is early writing development, evidenced in
have already been conducted, an overview of the
scribbling, producing letter-like forms and letter
current policy landscape, and the criteria used to
strings, and using “invented” spelling to attempt to
select studies for review. It then provides a summary
write words (Richgels, 2002); (Teale & Sulzby, 1986;
of key findings from the studies reviewed and tabled
Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Finally, oral language
at the CCEERC website, as well as lessons gleaned
skills (e.g., vocabulary and an understanding of the
from the research.
uses and conventions of spoken language) are critical
for learning to read (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2002).
Individually and collectively, these components of
emergent literacy are related to later reading and
academic success (Richgels, 2002; Snow, Burns, &
Griffin, 1998; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2002).

Promoting Language and Literacy in Early Childhood Care and Education Settings 2
 C h i l d C a r e a n d E a r l y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o n n e c t i o n s

BACKGROUND ON RESEARCH SYNTHESES “...frequent reading aloud to and with

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE children has been shown to lead to increases
AND LITERACY
in multiple areas of literacy development,
In recent years, several important syntheses of re-
including vocabulary growth, print
search on the development of language and literacy awareness, enjoyment of reading, and
in early childhood have been conducted. In 1998, an even children’s writing abilities ...”
important synthesis, Preventing Reading Difficulties
in Young Children, was completed by the National
Research Council of the National Academy of Sci-
ences (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). The report strategies. However, the single most important teach-
contains recommendations for early interventions ing strategy for children between birth and age 5 is
and instructional strategies for young children who reading aloud to children using a style that engages
are at risk of having problems learning to read, based children as active participants. Other important strat-
on a review of the research literature. The National egies include fostering an understanding of print
Research Council posits that to be effective, teachers concepts, arranging the classroom in a way that en-
should use a variety of strategies, and that a single courages interaction with books as well as engage-
approach might not be appropriate for all children. ment in writing activities, and posting signs and
They provide recommendations for practices in pre- labels throughout the classroom to enhance the “en-
school through third grade. Their main emphasis for vironmental print” available in the child care setting.
child care and other preschool settings is that they In addition, teachers and care givers should develop
should be rich in language and literacy activities. In children’s understanding of the alphabetic principle
particular, the authors emphasize the importance of and phonemic awareness.
activities designed to develop children’s phonological
More recently, a compendium of articles about
awareness. Furthermore, children who are at risk for
emergent literacy has been published in the Hand-
poor outcomes in language and literacy should be
book of Early Literacy Research (Neuman &
identified early and provided with additional support.
Dickinson, 2002 a). This volume presents
Also in 1998, the International Reading Associa- multidisciplinary perspectives on the most recent
tion (IRA) and the National Association for the theory, research, and practice in the field of emergent
Education of Young Children (NAEYC) created a literacy. Theoretical perspectives include cognitive,
position statement on early literacy (International biological, and sociocultural models of literacy devel-
Reading Association & National Association for the opment. The research highlighted in this volume
Education of Young Children, 1998). The document confirms that the preschool years play a critical role
makes recommendations for teaching practices that in children’s literacy development. In particular, pho-
support the literacy development of children from nemic awareness is acknowledged as an important
birth through age 8. Recommendations were based component for early reading, but multiple authors
on a review of the research as well as the “collective also identify oral language as important in facilitating
wisdom and experience” of the NAEYC and IRA both early reading and writing skills (Goswami,
membership; the position statement is in line with 2002; Watson, 2002). Several interventions are high-
the recommendations of the National Research lighted in the Handbook, including one-on-one
Council report (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). The tutoring or classroom-wide instruction in phonics,
authors state that children come from a wide variety improving access to print materials, and providing
of language and literacy backgrounds, so children multiple opportunities for using literacy materials in
vary greatly in their emergent literacy skills. No meaningful and engaging ways. However, the editors
single teaching method or approach will work for all note that the interventions that have been tested tend
children, so teachers must employ a range of teaching to have a narrow focus on a particular component of

Promoting Language and Literacy in Early Childhood Care and Education Settings 3
 C h i l d C a r e a n d E a r l y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o n n e c t i o n s

literacy development (e.g., phonics) and do not nec-

essarily show lasting results (Neuman & Dickinson, Current Policy Context
2002 b). Areas needing further research and theory
Current policy initiatives incorporate early language
development include the role of oral language and and literacy as a central component:
sociocultural context in the development of literacy
䊳 Good Start, Grow Smart intends to reinforce
among second-language learners (Neuman & early learning opportunities and promote early
Dickinson, 2002 b). school success through its efforts to:
▪ strengthen Head Start by ensuring that centers
meet standards of learning in early literacy,
language, and numeracy
CURRENT POLICY LANDSCAPE ▪ help states, in coordination with the Child Care
Bureau, to develop Child Care and Development
Fund State Plans describing voluntary quality
Early childhood education, particularly early literacy,
criteria and guidelines for emergent literacy and
is currently a major focus of the Bush administration. language activities, professional development
The administration developed an early childhood plans, and coordination of early childhood
initiative called Good Start, Grow Smart to programs
▪ conduct public awareness campaigns targeting
strengthen early learning opportunities and ensure parents, child care providers, and other early
that children enter school with the skills they need to childhood educators to provide information on
succeed. The initiative has three components. The early childhood development
first is strengthening Head Start, including the devel- 䊳 No Child Left Behind Act is designed to help
opment of a system of accountability to make sure children read proficiently by the end of third
that Head Start centers are meeting standards of grade, through two grant initiatives, Reading First
and Early Reading First, which help educators
learning in early literacy, language, and numeracy. implement research-based reading instruction
The second component is helping states to improve during the early school and preschool years
the quality of child care and other early childhood 䊳 Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research
education programs through the development of Grants Program (PCER) awards grants to sup-
quality criteria and guidelines for emergent literacy port rigorous, random assignment evaluations
and language activities. Under the Good Start, Grow of well-articulated, well-implemented preschool
curricula
Smart Initiative, the Child Care Bureau’s task is to
provide information, technical assistance, and leader-
ship to support states in their effort to develop Child
Care and Development Fund State Plans. Each of
these plans should describe voluntary state early
The tasks under this third component are mainly
learning guidelines in language, literacy, and pre-
charged to the U.S. Department of Education and
reading skills that line up with current K-12 stan-
the National Institute of Child Health and Human
dards; professional development plans of early care
Development (NICHD).1
and early education teachers, child care providers,
and administrators; and the coordination of early In addition, the No Child Left Behind Act (a
childhood programs, in order to avoid service dupli- revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education
cation and promote the improvement of children’s Act), signed into law in early 2002, includes two lit-
learning during the transition from pre-kindergarten eracy components designed to help children read pro-
to elementary school. The third component is public ficiently by the end of third grade—Reading First and
awareness campaigns targeted to parents, child care Early Reading First (Kauerz, 2002). Reading First is
providers, and other early childhood educators to designed to help schools implement well-researched
provide information on early childhood development. reading programs/curricula for kindergarteners

__________
1
See [Link]/infocus/earlychildhood/[Link]

Promoting Language and Literacy in Early Childhood Care and Education Settings 4
 C h i l d C a r e a n d E a r l y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o n n e c t i o n s

through third graders and to help teachers provide CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF STUDIES
effective early reading instruction. Early Reading First FOR REVIEW
is targeted to preschool-age children. Grants are being
given to early childhood education programs that The aim of this literature review is to provide an
attempt to foster emergent literacy through methods overview of studies of programs/curricula designed to
that have a strong research base (e.g., creating language improve children’s language or emergent literacy
and literacy-rich environments; professional develop- development in early childhood care and education
ment for child care providers; early language and lit- settings. While the main focus of the review was
eracy screening). The Early Reading First grants will interventions designed specifically to address
use strategies that are research-based to compile effec- children’s language and/or literacy, also included are
tive practice information about providing quality lan- summaries of comprehensive early childhood inter-
guage, literacy, and cognitive components that will ventions with a language/literacy component, includ-
foster later school success. The grant funds are pro- ing the High/Scope Perry Preschool Study, the Infant
vided to support local efforts to enhance these compo- Health and Development Program, the Abecedarian
nents, especially for low-income preschoolers and Project, Early Head Start, and the Chicago Child
children with disabilities. Thirty grants were awarded Parent Center and Expansion Program.
in 2002; they ranged from $782,330 to $4,483,364 for
a three-year project period.2 The articles summarized do not represent an
exhaustive list of research on this topic. In order to
Related to these efforts, the U.S. Department of insure a uniform standard of rigorous research, we
Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) has limited our focus to research published in peer-re-
awarded grants under the Preschool Curriculum viewed journals; book chapters and articles in non-
Evaluation Research Grants Program (PCER) in an peer reviewed journals were excluded. (We acknowl-
effort to strengthen and improve the instructional edge that there is much promising research focused
content of the nation’s preschool programs. The on promoting early literacy development in child care
grants support rigorous, random assignment evalua- settings that has not yet appeared in peer-reviewed
tions of well-articulated, well-implemented preschool journals and thus was not included in this review; see,
curricula. Grantees are required to implement the for example, the curricula under investigation as part
curricula in the pre-kindergarten year, and follow of the PCER.) Other criteria for research quality,
children yearly through the end of first grade. Out- besides being accepted in a peer-reviewed journal,
comes of interest include children’s academic success included an evaluation of the design of the study (i.e.,
in the areas of language development, pre-reading it had to use systematic, empirical methods, either
and pre-math skills, cognition, general knowledge, observational or experimental), the types of measures
and social competence. In 2002, seven research grants used (i.e., they had to produce valid data across evalu-
were awarded, ranging from $944,028 to $3,105,597 ators or observers, and across multiple measure-
for a four-year period; a new set of grants will be ments), and the degree to which the data analyses
awarded through PCER in 2003.3 addressed the hypotheses of the study and supported
Given the current policy focus on language and the stated conclusions. In addition, in order to be
literacy promotion for preschool-age children, the included in this review, a study had to report on child
review of existing research on strategies to promote language or literacy outcomes; that is, studies were
language and literacy in early childhood care and not included if they simply presented a description of
education settings is particularly relevant. an intervention or documented the effect of an inter-
vention on classroom quality but did not address how

__________
2
See [Link]/programs/earlyreading/[Link]
3
See [Link]/programs/edresearch/[Link]

Promoting Language and Literacy in Early Childhood Care and Education Settings 5
 C h i l d C a r e a n d E a r l y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o n n e c t i o n s

the intervention translated into child outcomes. The DESCRIPTION OF STUDIES

primary age range of the children in the studies was 3
to 5 years; studies of kindergartners or older children Targeted Intervention Studies
were excluded.
As noted above, the majority of studies reviewed
An attempt was made to find published studies involved an intervention designed specifically to
of interventions in home-based child care settings, enhance children’s language and literacy develop-
but none were found; therefore, the review only in- ment. Nine of the studies involved reading aloud
cludes studies of interventions in formal child care activities. In most cases, teachers were taught to read
and preschool settings. Several studies of interven- to groups of children using an interactive style
tions carried out outside of the United States are also (Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Wasik & Bond, 2001;
included. Specifically, interventions in Canada, Aus- Whitehurst, Arnold et al., 1994; Whitehurst, Epstein
tralia and New Zealand are included here, primarily et al., 1994), or else a researcher or teacher read to
because they used strong research designs to test the each child individually (Morrow, 1988; Reese & Cox,
effectiveness of preschool literacy interventions. 1999). Six studies involved activities designed to
About 45 articles were initially identified for in- promote children’s phonological skills, such as rhym-
clusion in this review. However, after further inspec- ing activities or learning to identify objects that begin
tion, several articles were excluded based on one or with certain sounds (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley,
more factors (e.g., not meeting the above-stated crite- 1991, 1993, 1995; Byrne, Fielding-Barnsley, &
ria—for example, having limitations in the research Ashley, 2000; Majsterek, Shorr, & Erion, 2000;
design or measurement instruments used; keeping Whitehurst, Epstein et al., 1994). Two studies in-
the number of articles based on the comprehensive volved altering the physical environment of class-
interventions to no more than two—one from an rooms to include an area rich in literacy materials and
early point in the evaluation, and one from the most environmental print (Christie & Enz, 1992; Neuman
current point of evaluation that included language or & Roskos, 1993), and one study observed whether
literacy outcomes). In all, there are 26 articles repre- child care classrooms of varying quality with regard
sented in this review: 18 articles representing findings to their literacy environment affected children’s lit-
from targeted interventions to promote literacy in eracy and cognitive outcomes (Dunn, Beach, &
early childhood care and education settings, and 8 Kontos, 1994). One program involved intensive train-
articles representing findings from comprehensive ing of caregivers in how to promote low-income
interventions with children ages 0 to 5. Additional Latino children’s emergent literacy (Yaden et al.,
information and detail about each study can be found 2000). In several of these studies, parents were
in the analytical table accompanying this review. coached in reading to their children in addition to
([Link]/location/ccrca2797) As the classroom intervention (Lonigan & Whitehurst,
new research is published, the table will be updated to 1998; Whitehurst, Arnold et al., 1994; Whitehurst,
include the most recent information on techniques and Epstein et al., 1994; Yaden et al., 2000).
curricula that promote language and literacy in early All of the targeted language/literacy intervention
childhood care and education settings. That is, the studies reviewed were carried out with preschoolers
table should be viewed as a “living document” that will who were between 3 and 5 years old. The length of
be expanded as new research and findings emerge over the interventions varied widely, ranging from a few
time. weeks to a full school year. The settings in which the
studies were conducted also varied somewhat, but
studies conducted in home-based child care settings
were not found. The studies were conducted in cen-
ter-based child care classrooms, Head Start class-
rooms, public pre-kindergartens, and other preschool

Promoting Language and Literacy in Early Childhood Care and Education Settings 6
 C h i l d C a r e a n d E a r l y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o n n e c t i o n s

classrooms. Sample characteristics varied; most stud- age children. Specifically, interactive book reading in
ies included children from low-income families while small groups generally improved children’s vocabulary
only one was conducted with children from higher- and print awareness, and in some cases, children’s
income families (Christie & Enz, 1992). writing and other emergent literacy skills. Interactive
book reading that occurred on an individual basis
Comprehensive Intervention Studies proved helpful in increasing vocabulary and print
awareness in one study (Reese & Cox, 1999) and the
Five studies of comprehensive early childhood inter-
number and complexity of children’s responses to the
ventions (which aimed to improve multiple develop-
book reading sessions in another (Morrow, 1988).
mental outcomes) were included: the High/Scope
Repetition of storybook reading and repeated ques-
Perry Preschool Study, the Infant Health and Devel-
tioning about novel words within the story were both
opment Program (IHDP), the Abecedarian Project,
helpful in promoting receptive and expressive vo-
Early Head Start, and the Chicago Child Parent
cabulary in yet another study (Senechal, 1997).
Center and Expansion Program (CPC). All of the
programs included participation in high quality pre- Those interventions that targeted children’s pho-
school settings (Liaw, Meisels, & Brooks-Gunn, nological skills also had positive results, as did inter-
1995; Love et al., 2002; Ramey & Campbell, 1984; ventions that entailed adding literacy-rich areas to
Reynolds, 1994; Weikart, Bond, & McNeil, 1978). classrooms. Specifically, interventions that targeted
Three of the programs started in infancy (IHDP, phonological skills tended to improve children’s pho-
Early Head Start, and Abecedarian), while the other nological awareness, and in one case were found to
two started when children reached the age of three improve decoding of words up to six years later
(High/Scope and the Chicago CPC program). The (Byrne et al., 2000). Increasing the environmental
length of the interventions varied somewhat, but all print in preschool classrooms increased the likelihood
lasted for at least two years. Most of the interventions of children engaging in literacy-related play activities
also included additional services, such as home visits, (Neuman & Roskos, 1993), but some research sug-
parent support group meetings, pediatric check-ups, gests that adult involvement may be necessary to
or referrals to community services. The programs encourage children to incorporate literacy-related
were all targeted to high-risk children from low- activities in dramatic play in addition to the increase
income families. The majority of children in four of in environmental print (Christie & Enz, 1992). The
the five comprehensive intervention studies were general quality of the child care classroom, as well as
African American (100% in Chicago CPC and the specific literacy-related activities in the class-
High/Scope; 94% in Abecedarian; 53% in IHDP); room, were found to predict children’s language de-
the study of Early Head Start represented a balance velopment (but not cognitive development) in one
of high-risk African American (33%), Hispanic study (Dunn et al., 1994).
(25%) and white (33%) children.
The one study that examined a multi-component
strategy to teaching literacy to low-income Latino
preschoolers found that the intervention was success-
THEMES EMERGING ACROSS THE STUDIES ful in increasing children’s knowledge about English
print, and children in the intervention outscored
Promising Approaches to Promoting Children’s children from other preschool programs at kindergar-
Language and Literacy Development ten entry in their ability to identify upper- and lower-
The studies that examined the effectiveness of reading case English letters, as well as English vowels and
aloud to children in an interactive manner (e.g., the consonants (Yaden et al., 2000).
dialogic reading method, Whitehurst, Arnold et al., In sum, a variety of targeted strategies were
1994) generally found this strategy to be successful in found to be successful at improving children’s lan-
promoting emergent literacy skills among preschool- guage and literacy skills during the preschool years

Promoting Language and Literacy in Early Childhood Care and Education Settings 7
 C h i l d C a r e a n d E a r l y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o n n e c t i o n s

and beyond: reading aloud to children in an interac- expensive, and they might not be the best approach
tive style (either one-on-one, or in small groups), to take if language and literacy are the only aspects of
phonological skill development, and increasing the development one is trying to affect.
amount and quality of environmental print in the
early childhood education setting. It is not possible to Dissipating Effects of Interventions
say which approach worked the best, or which
Literacy interventions of various types have docu-
worked better than another. As noted in the IRA/
mented short-term improvements in language and
NAEYC position statement, more than one approach
literacy skills. However, gains have generally not
may be necessary to affect literacy improvements
persisted into the elementary school years. For ex-
among all children. These studies illustrate that there
ample, in an experimental study of the training of
is not one approach that seems to work best for all
both parents and teachers in interactive reading tech-
children, but that various approaches can achieve
niques via videotape, combined with the implementa-
positive results. There is also some indication that
tion of a phonemic awareness curriculum in Head
combining effective approaches within a single inter-
Start classrooms, Whitehurst et al. (1999) found
vention may be beneficial (Whitehurst, Epstein et al.,
effects lasting through the end of kindergarten, but
1994; Whitehurst et al., 1999; Yaden et al., 2000).
not the end of first or second grade. Byrne, Fielding-
Comprehensive interventions that implemented Barnsley, and Ashley (2000) found “modest and inter-
high-quality child care and preschool programs mittent” effects of their preschool phonemic awareness
tended to show stronger statistical effects on child training to last through the end of fifth grade, but
outcomes than the targeted interventions, and the the effects were limited to decoding of words and did
effects of the interventions typically endured for not extend to other literacy skills, such as spelling or
longer periods of time. For example, children who comprehension. The authors suggest augmenting the
participated in the High/Scope Perry Preschool pro- phonemic awareness training with explicit training in
gram scored significantly higher than control group word segmentation and sound blending during pre-
children on measures of reading, arithmetic, and school in order to increase the likelihood of children
language through the fourth grade, and the magni- developing into successful readers.
tude of differences tended to increase over time
Interventions (both targeted and comprehensive)
(Weikert, Bond, & McNeil, 1978). One possible
that last over an entire preschool year may have more
explanation of these differences between targeted and
chance of achieving long-term effects. Several authors
comprehensive interventions is that the comprehen-
note that the educational environments that children
sive interventions usually lasted longer than targeted
enter after preschool may have a considerable effect on
interventions; many of the targeted interventions in
the development of children’s literacy skills, which needs
the studies reviewed were implemented for short
to be taken into account if one is looking at longitudinal
periods of weeks or months. Thus, the effects may be
effects of a preschool intervention (Reynolds, 1994;
a factor of the duration of the intervention, rather
Whitehurst et al., 1999). It is likely that continued
than the comprehensiveness, per se. Another possi-
gains in literacy skills over the elementary school years
bility for the differences between findings from the
requires ongoing exposure to a variety of literacy mate-
comprehensive and targeted intervention studies is
rials and high-quality learning opportunities.
that the comprehensive studies exclusively included
high-risk children from low-income families; perhaps
Domain Specificity
there was more room for improvement among such
children than there was among the more varied As noted earlier, there are multiple skills involved in
samples in the targeted interventions. Although reaching conventional reading and writing. Some
comprehensive interventions have been found to be studies have aimed at strengthening one aspect of
influential in promoting and sustaining positive aca- emergent literacy skills, yet it is not clear that profi-
demic outcomes, a disadvantage is that they are very ciency in one area necessarily spills over into under-

Promoting Language and Literacy in Early Childhood Care and Education Settings 8
 C h i l d C a r e a n d E a r l y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o n n e c t i o n s

standing or proficiency in another area of literacy METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

development (Byrne et al., 2000). In particular, a lot
of attention has been placed on promoting phono- Several methodological issues in the research on early
logical awareness (i.e., understanding which sounds childhood language and literacy interventions be-
letters and combinations of letters make), because came apparent from the review of the literature.
research indicates that phonological awareness is
critical to literacy development (Gunn et al., 2000; Fidelity of Implementation
Snow et al., 1998). However, the relative importance
of different domains is not known; for example, se- “Fidelity of implementation” refers to the extent to
mantic skills (i.e., understanding the meaning of which all the intended components of an interven-
words) may be as important to later reading develop- tion are actually implemented as planned. If an in-
ment as phonological skills (Majsterek et al., 2000), tervention is not faithfully implemented as intended,
or vocabulary growth may be central to later literacy the expected results may not be achieved. An example
(Dickinson & Sprague, 2002). of a lack of fidelity to an intervention model is the
failure to administer the intended dosage of the in-
Currently, many of the studies that aim at im- tervention. “Dosage” refers to the amount of inter-
proving phonological skills have concentrated their vention received within a given amount of time. Lack
outcome analyses on measures of phonological of parental and teacher compliance with the intended
awareness or decoding, or have examined the unique number (i.e., dosage) and quality of interactive book
contribution of phonological awareness to literacy reading sessions were sited as reasons for less robust
development, holding other factors constant (e.g., findings in several studies (Whitehurst, Arnold et al.,
Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1993). Understanding 1994; Whitehurst, Epstein et al., 1994).
the extent to which interventions targeting one as-
pect of language/literacy development affect the Duration Issues
development of other aspects of literacy development
is an important issue for further research. Research- “Duration” of an intervention means the length of
ers have theorized that there is interdependence time the intervention lasts. Analyses of the Chicago
among the multiple components of literacy develop- Child Parent Center and Expansion Program indi-
ment (e.g., vocabulary, phonemic awareness, and cate that, at least for comprehensive interventions,
print knowledge) and that they mutually reinforce intervening early in preschool and following up with
each other in the process of achieving literacy. Fur- services in kindergarten through third grade may
thermore, theorists have argued that there are mecha- provide the most benefit in terms of reading and
nisms that establish interdependency between lan- math achievement in the later elementary school
guage and literacy skills early in development, and grades (Reynolds, 1994). That is, the longer the dura-
mechanisms that maintain this interdependency tion of the intervention, the stronger the results to be
across development (Dickinson & Sprague, 2002). expected. However, duration and timing of the inter-
Further research is needed to test these hypotheses. vention can be confounded in many of these compre-
hensive early intervention studies (Campbell, Ramey,
It should be noted that frequent reading aloud to Pungello, Sparling, & Miller-Johnson, 2002), making
and with children has been shown to lead to increases it hard to establish whether the length or the timing
in multiple areas of literacy development, including of the intervention is the most important factor.
vocabulary growth, print awareness, enjoyment of Nevertheless, it is the case that the comprehensive
reading, and even children’s writing abilities (see, for interventions lasted for several years, whereas many
example, Morrow, 1988; Reese & Cox, 1999; and of the targeted interventions summarized here (and
Whitehurst, Arnold et al., 1994). Consequently, joint in more detail in the CCEERC tables) lasted a mat-
book reading should be viewed as one activity that ter of weeks, rather than a full year or years. It is
promotes language and literacy development across reasonable to question the type of lasting effects that
multiple domains.

Promoting Language and Literacy in Early Childhood Care and Education Settings 9
 C h i l d C a r e a n d E a r l y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o n n e c t i o n s

“... frequent reading aloud to and with outside the United States sometimes used instruments
designed for American samples. It is not clear that the
children has been shown to lead to increases
psychometric properties would hold across the popula-
in multiple areas of literacy development, tions, and no information on how the instruments
including vocabulary growth, print functioned with these non-U.S. samples was provided.
awareness, enjoyment of reading, and Future research on literacy interventions should provide
more consistent reporting of measure characteristics in
even children’s writing abilities ...” order to allow those who review the research to ad-
equately evaluate the strength of the measures to cap-
ture the constructs being studied, and to adequately
should be expected from short-term literacy inter- evaluate the outcomes of the study (for a more thorough
ventions, especially when fidelity to the model is not discussion of child outcome measures in the study of
always achieved (Whitehurst, Arnold et al., 1994; child care, see (Zaslow et al., forthcoming).
Whitehurst, Epstein et al., 1994).
Difficulty in Isolating the Effects of the Intervention
Dosage Issues Even among studies that examine a single interven-
As mentioned above, dosage refers to the amount of tion strategy, there are often multiple components to
intervention received. Several researchers have the intervention, and the researchers have not ana-
speculated that more intensive training of children lyzed their data in a way that would allow determina-
with their intervention model would produce stron- tion of which components of the intervention were
ger and longer-lasting results. For example, Byrne, responsible for positive outcomes. For example,
Fielding-Barnsley, and Ashley (2000) suggest that Yaden et al. (2000) describe an intervention that has
their model of providing seven hours of phonemic three components: providing a 2- to 3-hour morning
awareness training in preschool could be increased to language and literacy program in child care centers,
improve long-term effects of the training. providing in-class support and ongoing inservice
training regarding emergent literacy to child care
Lack of Information on Psychometric Properties teachers and paraprofessionals, and establishing a
of Instruments book-lending library for families and offering peri-
odic parent workshops on reading at home. While
Of the 26 studies included in this review, 19 studies did analyses indicated that Hispanic preschoolers partici-
not provide documentation on the reliability and/or pating in the intervention showed significant gains in
validity of the measures used. Although the lack of their knowledge about print at the end of the year,
information on reliability and validity of measures is and outscored comparison children (who did not
problematic, it may simply connote a failure to convey have the intervention) on letter identification and
information and not a problem with the measure itself. vowel/consonant recognition in English at the begin-
Indeed, many of these studies utilized well-established, ning of the kindergarten year, it is impossible to
standardized language measures, for which psychomet- know if all three components are needed to achieve
ric information on the standardization sample could be these positive outcomes, or whether one or two of the
retrieved from other sources, if needed. However, even three components would suffice. Similarly,
when standardized measures were used, only a few Whitehurst and colleagues (Whitehurst, Epstein et
studies reported on how the instrument performed for al., 1994; Whitehurst et al., 1999) had two compo-
their particular sample (e.g., Lonigan & Whitehurst, nents to their intervention: videotaped training in
1998; Morrow, 1988; Neuman & Roskos, 1993; dialogic reading (an interactive joint book-reading
Reynolds & Temple, 1998; Weikert, Bond, & McNeil, technique) for both parents and teachers, and the
1978; Whitehurst, Arnold et al., 1994; Whitehurst, introduction of a phonemic awareness curriculum in
Epstein et al., 1994). Furthermore, studies conducted the classrooms. Their findings of improved language

Promoting Language and Literacy in Early Childhood Care and Education Settings 10
 C h i l d C a r e a n d E a r l y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o n n e c t i o n s

and emergent literacy skills among Head Start chil- ISSUES NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED IN
dren who participated in the intervention were not THE CURRENT SET OF STUDIES
analyzed in a manner that permitted a determination
of whether the dialogic reading or the phonemic Successfully Working with Language Minority
awareness curriculum (or both in combination) pro- Children
vided the basis for achieving these outcomes. Fur-
thermore, it is not clear if training in dialogic reading The linguistic and cultural diversity of the early child-
for parents or teachers alone would have generated a hood population presents challenges to early child-
similar effect size for child outcomes as did the joint hood providers who are charged with developing
training of both teachers and parents in this tech- emergent literacy skills in all children. Yet few of the
nique. The inability or failure of researchers to test studies reviewed included children who were not flu-
the relative influence of the various components of ent in English. Addressing the needs of non-English
their multi-component interventions makes it all the speaking children is particularly important because this
more difficult to determine what “works” to promote population has been growing rapidly in recent years,
young children’s literacy skills in early childhood care and will continue to grow in the future. Specifically,
and education settings. the number of children who speak a language other
than English at home has more than doubled in recent
Initial Differences Between Program and years, from 5.1 million in 1980 to 10.6 million in
Comparison Group Children 2000 (Fix & Passel, 2003). Furthermore, by 2015, it
is expected that children of immigrants will consti-
Several studies noted initial differences in children’s tute 30 percent of the nation’s school population (Fix
literacy skills prior to the intervention. Some studies & Passel, 2003). Research suggests that children with
attempted to control for initial differences by analyz- a primary language other than English are more
ing change scores rather than raw or standardized likely to become fluent readers of English if they
scores (e.g., Majsterek, Schorr, & Erion, 2000). A have a strong understanding of their primary lan-
limitation of examining change scores, however, is guage (IRA & NAEYC, 1998). The IRA/NAEYC
that they do not indicate the final level of perfor- recommendation is that children’s home language
mance, and thus there is no way to judge whether should be maintained as they are learning to speak
outcomes have surpassed a threshold of achievement. and read English, and materials and resources in their
Other researchers addressed initial group differences primary language should be included in classrooms
by running additional post-hoc analyses based on the and activities whenever possible. Tabors (1997) sug-
initial group differences, and found different patterns gests that teachers should provide a language-rich
of results than were found when running analyses environment characterized by routine, plus a variety
based on program/comparison group differences of modifications to organization and curriculum, that
(e.g., Reese & Cox, 1999). The latter finding indi- well help second language learners feel comfortable.
cated that children with different initial strengths If second language learners feel overwhelmed by the
might benefit from different intervention strategies classroom social situation, they will be unable to
or different learning experiences. Still others used engage fully in the language-learning process. De-
pre-test scores (which indicated a significant differ- spite the importance of this issue, we were only able
ence between groups) as covariates when examining to identify one study that met our criteria that fo-
differences in post-test scores across groups (e.g., cused on improving the literacy development of non-
Sénéchal, 1997). Initial group differences tended to English speaking preschoolers (Yaden et al., 2000).
be more common among non-random assignment This is an area where more research is needed.
studies. To the extent possible, it is important to
account for initial group differences so that signifi- An important consideration for language minority
cant outcomes are not erroneously attributed to the populations is whether there might be differences
intervention. resulting from culturally-based definitions of or ap-

Promoting Language and Literacy in Early Childhood Care and Education Settings 11
 C h i l d C a r e a n d E a r l y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o n n e c t i o n s

“...the number of children who speak

Working with Language Minority Children
a language other than English at home
䊳 Little research on early literacy and language has
included children who are not fluent in English.
has more than doubled in recent years,
䊳
from 5.1 million in 1980 to 10.6 million
Existing studies suggest that children with a
primary language other than English are more in 2000 … by 2015, it is expected that
likely to become fluent readers of English if they
have a strong understanding of their primary children of immigrants will constitute
language. 30 percent of the nation’s school population ...”
䊳 The IRA and NAEYC recommend that children’s
home language be maintained as they are
learning to speak and read English, and
materials and resources in their primary
language be included in classrooms and Howes, & Galinsky, 1996; Norris, 2001; Pence &
activities whenever possible. Goelman, 1991; Weaver, 2002) sometimes comparing
it to the quality of care provided in center-based
settings (Broberg, Wessells, Lamb, & Hwang, 1997;
Clarke-Stewart, 1991). When children’s language or
literacy development were assessed as outcome vari-
proaches to literacy (Heath, 1983). For example, some
ables, they were linked back to the quality of care
research suggests that Spanish-speaking language
provided in home-based settings more generally,
learners should be introduced to vowels before conso-
rather than to specific practices carried out in those
nants in beginning reading programs (Escamilla, 2000).
settings to promote language and literacy develop-
A related issue is the lack of fair and reliable ment (Broberg et al., 1997; NICHD Early Child
assessments of language and literacy development for Care Research Network, 2000).
language minority children. In July 2003, an informal
Research on home-based care can sometimes
“think tank” was convened by SERVE, the National
collapse care by mothers and babysitters along with
Prekindergarten Center, the National Institute for
family child care providers (Clarke-Stewart, 1991),
Early Education Research, and Dr. Sharon Lynn
thus making the analysis of findings even less clear.
Kagan to discuss what is needed in the field to ad-
What we do know from the literature is that parents
vance the development of better school readiness
can be taught to use an interactive book reading
assessments for use with young language minority
technique with their children (Whitehurst, Arnold,
children. Hopefully, this consortium will help move
et al., 1994), so at least one type of literacy-promot-
the field forward on this important issue.
ing activity has been successfully implemented in
home-based settings. In at least one study of family
Successfully Implementing Interventions in
child care providers, the researchers found that pro-
Home-based Child Care Settings
viders who view themselves as professionals are more
As mentioned earlier, studies meeting our criteria likely to provide high quality care to children, and
conducted in home-based child care settings were not high quality family care providers were more likely to
found. In fact, a search of the literature on family report using appropriate activities with the children,
child care or other home-based care settings (includ- including cognitively stimulating activities such as
ing informal care by relatives, friends, and neighbors) music listening, story time, outdoor play, word/letter
did not turn up a single published article related to games, puzzles and dramatic play (Pence & Goelman,
curricula or activities promoting language and literacy 1991). Another study found that those family care
in young children. The literature that exists generally providers who stayed continually involved in work-
examines the quality of care provided in home-based shops throughout their tenure as caregivers showed
settings (Burchinal, Howes, & Kontos, 2002; Kontos, higher quality care, including providing language and

Promoting Language and Literacy in Early Childhood Care and Education Settings 12
 C h i l d C a r e a n d E a r l y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o n n e c t i o n s

“...there have been no systematic studies childhood workforce and its role in fostering the
early learning environments that the nation’s political,
of the literacy of the early childhood
economic, and education leaders are calling for so
workforce and its role in fostering the urgently” (Phillips, 2002).
early learning environments that the In her presentation, Phillips (2002) reported on
nation’s political, economic, and education new analyses of approximately 100 licensed center-
leaders are calling for so urgently.” and home-based child care providers in Alameda
County, California who were assessed on their English
literacy abilities using the Tests of Applied Literacy
Skills (TALS) as part of the Who Leaves, Who Stays
reasoning activities, than those who only intermit- Longitudinal Study. Analyses revealed that this cohort
tently participated in workshops (Norris, 2001). of providers scored slightly better than the national
Taken together, this research suggests that family care average on the literacy test (the average score was 296,
providers who are professionally oriented may be compared to the national average of 267). However,
more motivated to engage in training on promoting nearly one-third of the sample (32%) scored within the
children’s literacy skills, and may also be more likely “limited proficiency” range of the test, and none fell
to make good use of such training. into the most proficient category. Further analyses
investigated the associations between providers’ En-
Given the substantial proportion of young chil- glish literacy levels and a number of background char-
dren in home-based care settings, it behooves the acteristics, including the primary language of the pro-
research community to devote more time and re- vider. Results indicated that, controlling for other
sources to examining the types of activities that can factors, three factors significantly predicted literacy
promote children’s language and literacy development levels: (1) having a primary language other than En-
in home-based settings. It is an empirical question glish, (2) race, and (3) wages. Specifically, non-En-
whether the same techniques used in center-based glish speaking providers, African-American and non-
settings would be as successful in home-based settings. white, non-Hispanic providers, and providers with low
The research suggests that caregiver characteristics wages all had significantly lower TALS scores. When
such as professional orientation and motivation need examining center-based and home-based providers
to be taken into account when assessing the effective- separately, analyses revealed that English literacy
ness of literacy interventions introduced in home- scores were significantly predicted by race and wages
based settings. Conducting research in home-based for center-based providers, and were significantly
settings is much more complicated and expensive to predicted by having a primary language other than
undertake than in center-based settings; nevertheless, English for home-based providers. Specifically, home-
this work is important and needs to be done. based providers whose primary language was not En-
glish had TALS scores 67 points lower than native
The Literacy Level of Providers English speaking home-based providers.
There are additional caregiver characteristics that Additional analyses indicated that providers with
may affect children’s acquisition of emergent literacy higher English literacy scores (i.e., those scoring above
skills in child care settings. In particular, providers “minimal literacy”) provided children with a wider
who themselves have low literacy skills may have selection of age-appropriate books and pre-reading
difficulty creating language-rich environments for activities, and spent more time reading and talking
children and implementing literacy curricula/tech- one-on-one with children than those providers with
niques. As Deborah Phillips noted in a recent paper lower English literacy scores (i.e., those scoring in the
presented at the 2003 biennial meeting of the Society “minimal” or lower literacy levels). Even after control-
for Research in Child Development, “there have been ling for providers’ educational backgrounds, providers
no systematic studies of the literacy of the early

Promoting Language and Literacy in Early Childhood Care and Education Settings 13
 C h i l d C a r e a n d E a r l y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o n n e c t i o n s

with better English literacy skills provided higher- Important research is also being conducted by the
quality language and literacy environments for chil- Center for Improving the Readiness of Children for
dren in their care. These analyses suggest that Learning and Education (CIRCLE) at the Univer-
caregivers’ own English literacy skills are a significant sity of Texas, Houston Health Science Center. Dr.
factor in caregivers’ ability to establish literacy-rich Susan Landry summarized one research project and
environments for children. Furthermore, these analyses its findings at the White House Summit on Early
point to a serious need to address the English language Childhood Cognitive Development in July 2001
proficiency of home-based child care providers. Fur- (Landry, 2001). The researchers developed a model of
ther research on larger, more nationally representative professional development for Head Start teachers in
samples of child care providers is called for. which teachers attend a four-day workshop on teach-
ing language and literacy, and also take part in weekly
in-class coaching sessions. They tested the model
STUDIES TO WATCH FOR IN THE FUTURE with 435 teachers, who participated for one year, and
compared their progress to 210 teachers who did not
There are other promising interventions within early receive the training. They found that teachers in the
childhood care and education settings that were not intervention group made greater gains over the
included in this review or the CCEERC summary course of the year than teachers in the comparison
tables because the studies have not yet been pub- group in terms of oral language use, literacy activities,
lished in peer reviewed journals. For example, the and effective book reading. In addition, children in
Literacy Environment Enrichment Program (LEEP) the intervention classrooms made greater gains than
was recently developed by Dr. David Dickinson and children in the comparison classrooms on measures
colleagues, and is being used with Head Start pro- of phonological awareness, print concepts, letter
grams in New England (Dickinson & Sprague, 2002). knowledge, and receptive vocabulary. It will be im-
LEEP is a course, conducted with teams of teachers portant to monitor and review the findings once they
and their supervisors, which aims to help teachers use are published.
effective language and literacy practices. Teachers are Promising research related to language and lit-
trained to be more reflective about their practices, for eracy development is also currently being conducted
example by audiotaping and analyzing their own through the Head Start Quality Research Consor-
conversations with children. The program was evalu- tium II (2001-2006). For example, Janet Fischel at
ated with a total of 30 teachers and a comparison the State University of New York at Stony Brook is
group of 35 teachers. The researchers found that, in leading a study to compare curricula that have the
comparison to the no-intervention classrooms, LEEP goal of enhancing children’s emergent literacy and
improved overall classroom quality and teachers’ language skills in Head Start classrooms. The most
attention to children’s language and literacy, includ- promising curricula will be replicated in additional
ing the amount they read to children. They also classrooms, and children from the project will be fol-
found that changes in teacher ratings of children’s lowed and assessed through early elementary school.4
language and literacy development were significantly
greater in the intervention group than the compari- In addition, as mentioned earlier, the Preschool
son group. It should be noted, however, that using Curriculum Evaluation Research Grants Program is
teacher ratings of children’s literacy as an outcome also funding randomized evaluation studies of mul-
measure when the intervention was used with those tiple preschool curricula; some are aimed at improv-
same teachers might result in biased outcome data. ing language and literacy skills of young children.5
Nevertheless, this is promising research to watch.

__________
4
See [Link]/programs/core/ongoing_research/qrc/partnerships_2001.html
5
See [Link]/programs/edresearch/[Link]

Promoting Language and Literacy in Early Childhood Care and Education Settings 14
 C h i l d C a r e a n d E a r l y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o n n e c t i o n s

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION We note several gaps in the current literature,

which we hope will be addressed in future research.
Literacy skills start to emerge well before formal One area in need of further study is how to promote
schooling begins. The quality of the language and literacy skills among language minority children, as
literacy experiences that young children encounter at this is a growing subgroup of the American preschool
home and in their child care environments lay the population. Another area for future research is how to
groundwork for successfully achieving conventional improve the English literacy skills of child care pro-
reading and writing skills. Intervention research on viders, many of whom have limited literacy skills, at
activities and experiences that promote children’s least according to one recent study (Phillips, 2002).
language and literacy development in child care set- A related issue is the lack of research on home-based
tings is limited in number and scope. Even so, from child care settings. There is a doubly important need
the research summarized here (and in the CCEERC to increase the amount and quality of research of
tables), we can conclude that a variety of strategies home-based care settings, as some evidence suggests
can be successful at promoting children’s literacy that many home-based providers do not speak En-
skills; these include: engaging in interactive book glish as their primary language, which may, in turn,
reading, increasing the environmental print in the affect the type and quality of literacy experiences they
child care setting, and developing children’s phono- can provide to children in their care (Phillips, 2002).
logical skills. In addition, more comprehensive inter- As more research is generated, we hope that the
ventions that improve the quality of child care along picture of what promotes the language and literacy
with providing families with additional supports have skills of children in child care settings becomes more
proved to have long-lasting effects on children’s cog- clearly articulated for the full population of American
nitive and literacy skills in elementary school and preschoolers, and their care providers.
beyond. Improving the overall quality of child care
often means, among other things, providing literacy-
rich environments, and engaging in book reading and
one-on-one conversations. In essence, the elements
that have proven to be effective in more targeted
interventions to improve preschoolers’ language and
literacy skills have been important components of
more comprehensive interventions. Nevertheless, the
research does not permit us to conclude that one
approach works better than another. However, there
are indications that interventions that combine effec-
tive approaches may be most promising.
There are several factors that may influence the
effectiveness of a literacy intervention. These factors
include, but are not limited to, how closely the inter-
vention model was followed during implementation;
the intensity of the intervention and/or the length
of time the intervention was continued; and various
characteristics of providers, such as their professional
orientation or their own literacy skills, which may af-
fect the motivation or ability to improve the language
and literacy environment in the child care setting.

Promoting Language and Literacy in Early Childhood Care and Education Settings 15
 C h i l d C a r e a n d E a r l y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o n n e c t i o n s

REFERENCES Fix, M., & Passel, J. (2003). U.S. immigration - Trends and
implications for schools. Paper presented at the National Associa-
tion for Bilingual Education, New Orleans, LA.
Broberg, A. G., Wessells, H., Lamb, M. E., & Hwang, C. P.
(1997). Effects of day care on the development of cognitive Goswami, U. (2002). Early phonological development and the
abilities in 8-year-olds: A longitudinal study. Developmental acquisition of literacy. In S.B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.),
Psychology, 33(1), 62-69. Handbook of Early Literacy Research. New York: Guilford Press.

Burchinal, M. R., Howes, C., & Kontos, S. (2002). Structural Gunn, B. G., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (2000). Emer-
predictors of child care quality in child care homes. Early Child- gent literacy: Synthesis of the research.
hood Research Quarterly, 17, 87-105.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a Communities and Classrooms. New York: Cambridge University
program to teach phonemic awareness to young children. Journal Press.
of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 451-455.
International Reading Association, & National Association for
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1993). Evaluation of a the Education of Young Children. (1998). Learning to read and
program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 1- write: Developmentally appropriate practice for young children.
year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 104-111. Young Children, 53(4), 30-46.

Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1995). Evaluation of a Kauerz, K. (2002). No child left behind policy brief: Literacy. Den-
program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: a 2- ver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
and-3-year follow-up and a new preschool trial. Journal of
Kontos, S., Howes, C., & Galinsky, E. (1996). Does training
Educational Psychology, 87, 488-503.
make a difference to quality in family child care. Early Childhood
Byrne, B., Fielding-Barnsley, R., & Ashley, L. (2000). Effects of Research Quarterly, 11(4), 427-445.
preschool phoneme identity training after six years: Outcome
Kurdek, L. A., & Sinclair, R. J. (2000). Psychological, family,
level distinguished from rate of response. Journal of Educational
and peer predictors of academic outcomes in first- through fifth-
Psychology, 92(4), 659-667.
grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 449-457.
Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., &
La Paro, K. M., & Pianta, R. C. (2000). Predicting children’s
Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young
competence in the early school years: A meta-analytic review.
adult otucomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Develop-
Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 443-484.
mental Psychology, 6(1), 42-57.
Landry, S. (2001, July). Supporting cognitive development in early
Christie, J. F., & Enz, B. (1992). The effects of literacy play
childhood. Paper presented at the White House Summit on Early
interventions on preschoolers’ play patterns and literacy develop-
Childhood Cognitive Development, Washington, DC.
ment. Early Education and Development, 3(3), 205-220.
Liaw, F., Meisels, S. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995). The effects of
Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1991). A home is not a school: The
experience of early intervention on low birth weight, premature
effects of child care on children’s development. Journal of Social
children: The Infant Health and Development Program. Early
Issues, 47(2), 105-123.
Childhood Research Quarterly, 10, 405-431.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavorial
Lonigan, C. J., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of
sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention
Dickinson, D. K., & Sprague, K. E. (2002). The nature and for preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early
impact of early childhood care environments on the language and Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(2), 263-290.
early literacy development of children from low-income families.
Love, J. M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C. M., Schochet, P. Z., Brooks-
In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early
Gunn, J., Paulsell, D., Boller, K., Constantine, J., Vogel, S.,
literacy research (pp. 263-279). New York: The Guilford Press.
Fuligni, A. S., & Brady-Smith, C. (2002). Making a difference in
Dunn, L., Beach, S. A., & Kontos, S. (1994). Quality of the the lives of infants and toddlers and their families: The impacts of
literacy environment in day care and children’s development. Early Head Start. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 9, 24-34. and Human Services.

Escamilla, K. (2000). Bilingual means two: Assessment Issues, Majsterek, D. J., Shorr, D. N., & Erion, V. L. (2000). Promoting
early literacy and Spanish speaking children., A Research Sympo- early literacy through rhyme detection activities during Head
sium on High Standards in Reading for Students from Diverse Start circle-time. Child Study Journal, 30(3), 143-151.
Language Groups: Research, Practice & Policy. Washington, D.C:
Morrow, L. M. (1988). Young children’s responses to one-to-one
Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs,
story readings in school settings. Reading Research Quarterly,
U.S. Department of Education.
23(1), 89-107.

Promoting Language and Literacy in Early Childhood Care and Education Settings 16
 C h i l d C a r e a n d E a r l y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o n n e c t i o n s

Neuman, S. B., & Dickinson, D. K. (2002 b). Introduction. In Wasik, B. A., & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a
S.B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early book: Interactive book reading and language development in
Literacy Research. New York: Guilford Press. preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2),
243-250.
Neuman, S. B., & Dickinson, D. K. (Eds.). (2002 a). Handbook
of Early Literacy Research. New York: Guilford Press. Watson, R. (2002). Literacy and oral language: implications for
early literacy acquisition. In S.B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson
Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (1993). Access to print for children (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research. New York: Guilford
in poverty: Differential effects of adult medication and literacy- Press.
enriched play settings on environmental and functional print
tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 95-122. Weaver, R. H. (2002). Predictors of quality and commitment in
family child care: Provider education, personal resources, and
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2000). The support. Early Education and Development, 13(3), 265-282.
relation of child care to cognitive and language development.
Child Development, 71(4), 960-980. Weikart, D. P., Bond, J. T., & McNeil, J. T. (1978). The Ypsilanti
Perry Preschool Project: Preschool years and longitudinal results
Norris, D. J. (2001). Quality of care offered by providers with through fourth grade (Monograph of the High/Scope Educational
differential patterns of workshop participation. Child & Youth Research Foundation, 3). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
Care Forum, 30(2), 111-121.
Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L.,
Pence, A., & Goelman, H. (1991). The relationship of regula- Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture book reading
tion, training, and motivation to quality of care in family day intervention in day care and home for children from low-income
care. Child & Youth Care Forum, 20(2), 83-101. families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 679-689.
Phillips, D. (2002). Literacy levels of child care providers: Cause for Whitehurst, G. J., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Payne, A. C.,
[Link] manuscript. Crone, D. A., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). Outcomes of an emergent
Ramey, C. T., & Campbell, F. A. (1984). Preventive education literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of Educational Psy-
for high-risk children: Cognitive consequences of the Carolina chology, 86(4), 542-555.
Abecedarian Project. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development
88(5), 515-523. and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69(3), 848-872.
Reese, E., & Cox, A. (1999). Quality of adult book reading Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2002). Emergent literacy:
affects children’s emergent literacy. Developmental Psychology, Development from prereaders to readers. In S. B. Neuman & D.
35(1), 20-28. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 11-
Reynolds, A. J. (1994). Effects of a preschool plus follow-on 29). New York: The Guilford Press.
intervention for children at risk. Developmental Psychology, 30(6), Whitehurst, G. J., Zevenbergen, A. A., Crone, D. A., Schultz,
787-804. M. D., Velting, O. N., & Fischel, J. E. (1999). Outcomes of an
Reynolds, A. J., & Bezruczko, N. (1993). School adjustment of emergent literacy intervention from Head Start through second
children at risk through fourth grade. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 261-272.
39(4), 457-480. Yaden, D. B., Tam, A., Madrigal, P., Brassell, D., Massa, J.,
Richgels, D. J. (2002). Invented spelling, phonemic awareness, Altamirano, L. S., & Armendariz, J. (2000). Early literacy for
and reading and writing instruction. In S.B. Neuman & D. K. inner-city children: The effects of reading and writing interven-
Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research. New tions in English and Spanish during the preschool years. The
York: Guilford Press. Reading Teacher, 54(2), 186-189.

Senechal, M. (1997). The differential effect of storybook reading Zaslow, M., Halle, T., Cabrera, N., Calkins, J., Pitzer, L., &
on preschoolers’ acquisition of expressive and receptive vocabu- Margie, N. G. (forthcoming). Child outcome measures in the
lary. Journal of Child Language, 24(1), 123-138. study of child care quality: Overview and next steps. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Prevent-
ing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Academy Press.

Tabors, P. O. (1997). One child, two languages: A guide for preschool

educators of children learning English as a second language. Balti-
more, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

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

reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Promoting Language and Literacy in Early Childhood Care and Education Settings 17