Preschoolers language and early literacy skills: Storybook dif

1
Relations Among Home Literacy Environment, Child
Interest, and Emergent Literacy Skills
Alison E. Baroody Karen E. Diamond
Department of Child Development and Family Studies

• Relation between HLE and Interest
• HLE was regressed on each interest measure
• HLE was not significantly related to
  child-reported interest (Cohort 1 ß .05, p
  ns Cohort 2 ß -.13, p ns)
• HLE was significantly related to parent-reported
  child interest (Cohort 1 ß .48, p lt .01
  Cohort 2 ß .41, p lt .01)
• Relation among Interest and Emergent Literacy
  Skills
• Receptive Language
• Neither interest measure was a significant
  predictor of receptive language in either cohort
• Letter-word Identification
• Parent-reported and child-reported child
  interest were regressed on emergent literacy
  outcomes
• Both parent-reported and child-reported interest
  predicted letter-word identification scores in
  Cohort 1, but only child-reported interest
  marginally predicted letter-word scores in Cohort
  2 (See Table 1)
• Alphabet Knowledge
• Due to a bimodal distribution a dichotomous
  variable was created (0knowing less than 10
  letters 1 knowing 10 letters or more)
• A logistic regression was conducted
• Parent-reported child interest predicted
  alphabet knowledge in Cohort 1, but not in Cohort
  2 (See tables 2 and 3)
• Child-reported interest marginally predicted
  alphabet knowledge in Cohort 1 and significantly
  predicted alphabet knowledge in Cohort 2 (See
  tables 2 and 3)

Introduction
Parent Measures

• Preschoolers' home literacy environment (HLE) is
  an important predictor of emergent literacy
  skills.
• Scholars suggest that childrens interest in
  literacy activities may also be related to
  emergent literacy skills.
• Studies provide support for a relation between
  interest and code-related skills (e.g., letter
  knowledge), but mixed results in relation to oral
  language (e.g., receptive vocabulary). Few
  studies have examined the link between HLE and
  child interest.
• Mixed findings may be due to the use of
  different methods of assessing children's
  interest (i.e., parent-reported child interest
  vs. child-reported interest).

• Parent Questionnaire
• Parent-child literacy engagement, 6 items (e.g.,
  frequency of shared reading, number of books in
  the home Cohort 1 a .68 Cohort 2 a .67 )
• Parent-reported child interest, 8 items (Cohort
  1 a .80 Cohort 2 a .82)
• Items measured frequency of child engagement and
  level of enjoyment in literacy activities
• Literacy activities included
• Reading (e.g., how much does your child enjoy
  being read to?)
• Writing (e.g., how often does your child attempt
  to write words?)
• Print (e.g., how often does your child ask you
  what a printed word says?)

Research Questions
Child Measures
1. Is parent-reported child literacy interest
related to child-reported literacy interest? 2.
How are both measures of interest related to HLE
and to emergent literacy skills?

• Emergent Literacy
• Receptive language PPVT-III and PPVT-IV
• Woodcock-Johnson Letter-Word Identification
• Alphabet knowledge FACES QRS Letter Naming
• Child-reported Interest
• 6 item on which children reported interest in
• Reading (e.g., Listening to your teacher read
  books at group time)
• Writing (e.g., Writing letters and words)
• Letters (e.g., Learning letter names)
• Different response formats
• Cohort 1 Children were shown a picture of each
  of six different literacy activities along with
  three faces (smiling, neutral, frowning) and
  asked if they like the activity a lot, a
  little, or not at all, an approach similar to
  collecting sociometric assessments (e.g., Asher,
  Singleton, Tinsley, Hymel, 1979 a .62)
• Cohort 2 Children were shown a picture of each
  of six different literacy activities along with
  two faces (smiling and frowning). Children were
  told some children like the activity and some do
  not like it. Children pointed to which child they
  were most like and were then asked if they were a
  lot or a little like that child to form a 4-point
  scale (a .62).

Participants

• Data were collected in two waves
• Cohort 1
• 72 preschool children (M 52.3 months, SD
  6.5 37 boys)
• Children were from Head Start and local
  preschools
• Majority of children were from middle-income
  families
• Mothers' education level ranged from no High
  School/GED to Graduate degree
• 72 had at least a 4-year college degree
• Racial/Ethnic background
• 55 White, 17 Asian,10 Hispanic/Latino, 10
  Black/African America, 8 other races
• Cohort 2
• 49 preschool children (M 51.3 months, SD
  4.4 22 boys)
• Children were from Head Start programs
• Majority of children were from low-income
  families
• Mothers education level ranged from no High
  School/GED to Graduate degree
• 90 reported High School/GED as their highest
  degree
• Racial/Ethnic background
• 47 White, 23 Hispanic/Latino, 16
  Black/African American, 14 Bi/multi-racial or
  other races

Discussion

• Parent- and child-reported child interest are
  not related suggesting the two methods may be
  measuring different aspects of child interest.
• The home literacy environment was related to
  parent-reported interest. This method may tap
  into an aspect of childrens interest that is
  influenced by parents literacy beliefs and
  practices, whereas child-reported interest may
  tap into an aspect of interest related to
  preschool curriculum and activities.
• Literacy interest appears to be related to
  code-related skills, but not oral language.
• The two cohorts differ greatly in demographic
  characteristics which may explain, in part, the
  different pattern of associations.
• The findings from these cohorts suggest that
  child interest in literacy activities may be a
  multi-faceted construct which may be moderated by
  families demographic characteristics.

Analyses and Results

• Relation between Interest Measures
• Correlations were conducted between
  parent-reported and child-reported child interest
  
• The two measures were not significantly related
  Cohort 1(r(71) .09, p ns Cohort 2 r(48)
  .06, p ns)

This research was supported in part by grants
from NICHD (R01HD046091) to Indiana University
with a subcontract to Purdue University and from
the Institute of Education Sciences
(R305B070605) to Purdue University.