Parallel Learning of Reading and Writing in Early Childhood

Mary Shea

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2011
• ISBN:
  9781136896941
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Parallel Learning of Reading and Writing in Early Childhood explores why it's important to provide a balanced language learning environment for young children and offers approaches for children to practice and explore language. Writing – a different but parallel process – can open the door to reading, and an effective writing approach in the home and early childhood classrooms leads to the development of phonemic awareness, understanding of phonetic principles, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. Effective early childhood teachers are those that extend the knowledge children have amassed at home and use the knowledge of how children learn naturally in the world to inform their practice.

This book offers the purpose, context, and outcomes of including writing right from the start in young children's literacy learning. Through analysis of writing samples, research, and principles of best practices, Shea outlines the essential ingredients for early language learning and provides a developmentally appropriate approach to language learning. Throughout the chapters, Shea integrates discussion of assessment, classroom environment, instructional/teacher scaffolding, and differentiating instruction across developmental levels along with the supporting theory.

Special features:

• 
  
  

• vignettes and descriptions of Pre-K, K, and Grade 1 classrooms that incorporate writing across the day
• artifacts of children's writing that demonstrate an evolution of knowledge related to both message and word construction
• concept labeling words and topic specific terms defined throughout the book to support the reader's understanding of professional terminology
• discussion of seminal and current research as well as best practices
• Companion Website with lesson ideas and abundant writing samples from a wide range of demographic, cultural, and language contexts for readers to view, analyze, and discuss.

This text offers pre- and in-service early childhood education teachers the content and resources to develop a deeper understanding of language learning, to prompt an examination of current practice, and to stimulate curricular re-designs that foster meaningful, joyful, and motivated learning.

part one

A Strong Foundation for Learning Language

one

Introduction

Big Ideas in the Introduction

■ Essential components for reading competency

■ Parallel learning of language processes

■ Literacy learning at home and at school

■ Creating effective literacy learning classrooms

Essential Ingredients for Reading Competency

Phonemic awareness, phonetic knowledge, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension have gained status as the essential components for reading competency (Cunningham, 2002; Moore & Lyon, 2005; NICHHD, 2000; Scanlon, Anderson & Sweeney, 2010). Schools quickly prioritized them and implemented programs of instruction focused on each. Skill in each of these components is important in becoming literate; that’s not in dispute. What is in dispute is how to achieve balanced instruction. An obsession with teaching these skills in isolation (outside of their normal use) obscures the pivotal role of early writing and other language processes in young children’s development. It also works against the concept of learning reciprocity.

phonemic awareness
understanding that words are made of separate, sequential sounds

phonetic knowledge
knowledge of the match between sounds and letters in a language

fluency
combined effect of reading pace, accuracy, and elements related to expression

vocabulary
understanding words used in oral and written communication and the ability to use words appropriately for expression

comprehension
understanding meaning communicated in oral or written messages

balanced instruction
instruction that provides continuous teaching across all components deemed necessary for literacy

reciprocity
a mutual exchange or interaction of knowledge in different domains

Synchronous Learning of Language Processes

Numerous researchers confirm the importance of learning reading and writing skills concurrently and interactively (Cecil, 2007; Martin, Lovat, & Purnell, 2007; Makin, Diaz, & McLachlan, 2007; Vukelich, Christie, & Enz, 2002). “There is a synchrony in learning to read, write, and spell. Development in one area generally coincides with advances in the other two areas” (Cecil, 2007, p. 106). A body of research supports a correlation theory, indicating that development in one language process influences growth in the others (Bagley, 1937; Bissex, 1980; Clay, 1980, 2001a; Evans, 1979; Stotsky, 1975, 1983; Whitmore, Martens, Goodman & Owocki, 2005). Kenneth Goodman (1982) suggests, “skills displayed by the proficient reader derive from the meaningful use of written language” (p. 265). This view differs radically from paradigms that consider reading and writing to be reverse processes or mirror images with their own set of sub-skills (Ruddell, 1969; Sticht, Beck, Hauck, Kleinman, & James, 1974; Yoos, 1979).

correlation
relationship where a change in one element is related to change in another

paradigm
set of ideas that establish a pattern or model

Sub-skill or code emphasis approaches (Chall, 1967) emphasize learning discrete components of reading competency (i.e. phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and sight vocabulary) in isolation followed by practice with de-contextualized text (content that is neither story nor continuous text). Instruction starts with the smallest pieces of language (sounds and letters); eventually, lessons incorporate larger units (sentences, paragraphs, and stories) of text built with controlled vocabulary, rhyming words, and/or repetitive refrains. Children learn to perform skills in an automatic, rote manner, but some do not easily integrate this knowledge when navigating the complexities of real literature or writing personal messages (Temple, Ogle, Crawford, & Freppon, 2008; Vacca, Vacca, Gove, Burkey, Lenhart, & McKeon, 2009).

Yetta Goodman (1984) described the reading–writing relationship as semiotic (p. 102); children first begin to comprehend the interrelationship of reading and writing as representations of meaning when they actively participate in family literacy events (Whitmore et al., 2005). Squire (1983) described reading and writing as related in the similarity of demands placed on thinking. Similarly, Kucer (1985) explained the relationship as parallel processes after examining research findings in education, psychology, and linguistics; he concluded that reading and writing are “more appropriately conceived as running in parallel and utilizing many of the same basic mechanisms … drawing from a common pool of cognitive and linguistic operations [i.e. composing, comprehending]” (p. 319). Adding another dimension, Dahl and Farnam (1990) describe a body of research “showing reading and writing as transactional processes—each concurrently changing the other and becoming changed in the process” (p. 85).

semiotic relationship
both reading and writing involve the functions of signs and symbols in a language

parallel processes
growing in the same direction simultaneously and distinctly

transactional processes
processes that interact with each other

The extent to which these concepts of semiotic, parallel, or transactional processing in reading and writing have become important in the field of early literacy development is evidenced by the numerous studies (Dyson, 1982; Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984; Pappas, Keifer, & Levstik, 1999; Taylor, 1983; Teale, 1982) that have explored young children’s literacy development and reaffirm that “preschoolers employ similar strategies when generating meaning through and from print” (Kucer, 1985, p. 319). These researchers conclude a positive interactional effect (transaction) as these processes, involving an understanding of the signs and symbols (semiotics) of printed language, develop in parallel, employing and developing similar cognitive functions. Based on that finding, integrated instruction and practice in early childhood curriculum creates a balance that allows each process to develop and complement growth in the other (Roe, Smith, & Burns, 2005).

integrated instruction
instruction that provides demonstration and supported practice in using all of the literacy-learning components interactively

Despite the research supporting parallel learning, it appears that mandates and other priorities have made balanced inclusion of all language functions in early childhood classrooms the exception rather than the norm. In recent years, programs for teaching literacy have flooded the market. Each is based on the publisher’s construct of essential components, rather than on substantiated research. Publishers characterize their model as research-based when any aspect of it can be traced to research; it’s touted as based on research. This is completely different from whole practices that are research-tested and found to have significant positive effects. The caveat is to understand the difference between research-based and research-tested (Scanlon et al., 2010).

Along with packaged programs, commercial assessments for measuring students’ literacy progress are a notable line item in school budgets. As publishers define curriculum and materials, one begins to wonder if the ready-made products greedily consuming classroom time and budgets are worth the sacrifice. Is there a better way to ensure children are acquiring literacy skills and applying them meaningfully?

The debate over approaches for teaching literacy and sequencing of instruction will likely go on—and on. The stakes are high; companies invested in publishing all the teacher trappings for a specific approach need to ensure their view is winning (Garan, 2004). Even though we’ve known for a long time that it’s the teacher, not a program, that makes the difference (Bond & Dykstra, 1967; Cole, 2003a), some well-intended educators succumb to the silver bullet product pitch. However, not all classroom teachers are as easily swayed by glitzy ads. Years of experience have honed their persistence as reflective teacher-researchers; teachers are steadfast in analyzing what works and what doesn’t. Prolonged up-front and personal observations in the classroom create the fabric of these authentic views and provide the data to verify them.

Literate Before Schooling

In seminal research—research that has endured the test of time—Delores Durkin (1966), a researcher and Professor of Education Emeritus at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, concluded that children who are exposed to interactive models (where they have opportunities to question and participate) of literacy, invited to playfully engage in literate activities, supported in the literacy tasks they choose, and allowed to experiment in their own way, come to school reading or learn to read with ease. This wasn’t anything magical; these interactive models allowed children effective incidental language instruction—even when those around them didn’t intend to teach—and abundant time to practice with lots of support. Her study of precocious readers “led to the eventual demise of reading readiness programs, highlighting the role of parents in literacy learning, and set the stage for later emergent views” (IRA, 1998, p. 28).

seminal research
study that notably influenced future thinking or events

interactive models
instructional models that incorporate student interaction in the learning process

FIGURE 1.1 Books as Comfortable Companions

FIGURE 1.2 Experimenting Like a Writer

Other research consistently supports these conclusions (Bissex, 1980; Clay, 2001b; Holdaway, 1979; Laminack, 1991; Torrey, 1969; Taylor, 1983; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988; Rasinski & Padak, 2009). In other words, some children already know how to use component skills in reading when they arrive at school; others are in the process of acquiring specific skills while writing and reading back what they wrote. Those with even a modicum of proficiency in early reading and writing skills are more likely to attend to formal (school) literacy instruction because they know how the information will serve their needs; they’re building on what they’ve already learned at home. The information has a use that’s authentic and genuinely relevant to them. Maybe, just maybe, if instruction in early childhood classrooms looked more like the environments described in this body of research, we’d have successful, motivated learners right from the start.

Literacy at Home

Literacy instruction at home is usually implicit although it can be explicit at times. Often, adults don’t even realize they’re teaching the child about language skills. They offer soft teaching; they encourage, respond, coach, and answer questions in all the right ways. Children watch, reflect, and ask as their curiosity is sparked by the behaviors of significant others in their environment. They replicate observed reading and writing behaviors for their own purposes. Although done playfully, this is serious business. Play is a child’s work; it “typically provides a meaningful context for children to construct new knowledge” (Owocki, 1999, p. 3)—one where the child is in charge and safely takes risks. Owocki (1999) suggests that “play is ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedicatio
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• PART 1. A Strong Foundation for Learning Language
• PART 2. Mindfully Mediating Language Learning
• Bibliography
• Index