Links Among Home Literacy Environment,Literacy Interest,and Emergent Literacy Skills in Preschoolers At Risk for Reading Difficulties

Abstract

Researchers have suggested that children who are interested in literacy activities and voluntarily engage in them are likely to become better readers than children with less literacy interest. Literacy interest, along with engaging literacy activities and responsive teaching, are important components in children’s early literacy experiences. This study examines associations among children’s self-reported literacy interest, their parents’ reports of home literacy environment (HLE), and their code-related skills. Overall, literacy interest was related to code-related skills (i.e., letter–word identification and alphabet knowledge). HLE was not related to code-related skills. Further analyses reveal different patterns of relations among interest and code-related skills for children with low receptive language scores compared to their peers with age-level receptive language scores. These results suggest that taking advantage of individual children’s interests as well as planning activities that are likely to be interesting may be effective strategies for promoting children’s learning of important school readiness skills.

Keywords

reading Head Start academic achievement child engagement home environment school readiness

Reading is an essential area of academic competence that is “central to children’s successful development and functioning as adult citizens in society” (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2000, p. 10), and learning to read is a central focus of instruction in early elementary grades. Children who are successful in reading are also more likely to do well in mathematics and other areas of academic achievement (NCES, 2000). Young children enter kindergarten with a range of skills related to reading, and children from poor families and families in which adults speak a language other than English at home enter school with lower levels of achievement on early literacy skills than their peers (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001). Children’s literacy skills at kindergarten entry are related to reading achievement in both early and later school years, and there is evidence that getting off to a “fast start” learning to read is a component in later school achievement (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Denton & West, 2002).

Recent federal and state policy initiatives have emphasized the importance of classroom instruction for promoting children’s learning of critical school readiness skills, particularly those related to language, literacy, and mathematics. For example, Head Start Performance Standards emphasize the importance of promoting children’s development of cognitive skills related to early literacy and numeracy, and the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework includes a congressionally mandated focus on phonological awareness, print awareness, and letter knowledge (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003, 2010). Similarly, early literacy skills, including phonological awareness skills such as alphabet knowledge and awareness of initial sounds in words, hold a prominent place in many states’ early learning standards (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2006). In addition, the U.S. Department of Education, through the Office of Special Education Programs, requires states to report on learning outcomes for preschool children with identified disabilities who receive publicly supported intervention services. Of the three child outcomes, one emphasizes the child’s acquisition of knowledge and skills, including those related to language/communication and early literacy (Early Childhood Outcome Center, http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~eco/).

Classroom-based preschool interventions have been identified as ways to promote young children’s understanding of important code-related phonological awareness skills (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008). Much of the current research literature emphasizes systematic and explicit instruction for teaching young children phonological awareness skills, such as word segmentation and blending as well as letter names and sounds (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2008; Phillips, Clancy-Menchetti, & Lonigan, 2008). Explicit instruction can be effective in promoting phonological awareness skills in children who are at risk because of poverty (Lonigan et al., 2003), home language (Farver, Lonigan, & Eppe, 2009), or disability (Justice, Chow, Capellini, Flanigan, & Colton, 2003; Lonigan et al., 2003). Less research attention has focused on the ways in which other individual characteristics, specifically children’s interest and engagement in literacy activities, are related to their development of skills critical for early reading success. The research reported in this article adopts a bioecological framework (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) in which both person characteristics (e.g., child literacy interest) and context variables (e.g., literacy experiences at home) are expected to contribute to children’s emergent literacy skills. Within this framework, we examine associations among children’s interest in literacy activities (a person characteristic), their home literacy environment and experiences (a contextual variable), and early literacy performance in a group of at-risk poor children.

The Role of Children’s Interest in Literacy Activities

Opportunities for young children to engage in naturalistic and meaningful interactions with interesting and appealing literacy-related activities and materials promote development and learning. Children put forth higher levels of attention and effort in activities in which they are interested, with higher levels of attention and effort leading to increased learning (Ainley, Hidi, & Berndorff, 2002). Justice and colleagues (2003) found that children’s oral language proficiency and children’s orientation to literacy (assessed by rating children’s interest during book reading) each significantly contributed to children’s learning of the code-related phonological awareness skills that were taught as part of an experimental intervention. They argued that “children’s engagement and interest in literacy activities . . . seems critical to successful literacy achievement, even in the earliest stages of development” (p. 329). Kaderavek and Pakulski (2007) reached a similar conclusion about the importance of children’s interest for positive literacy outcomes in a study with preschool-age children with hearing impairment. Similar associations between children’s interest in literacy activities (assessed by ratings from parents or caregivers) and children’s performance on code-related literacy tasks have been reported in a recent study with children from low-income families (Bracken & Fischel, 2008). These scholars and others have suggested that taking advantage of children’s interests to identify engaging and motivating activities is one approach to maximizing children’s learning (Dunst et al., 2001).

Early Literacy

The association between children’s literacy interest and code-related skills is especially important because of the pivotal role that code-related skills play in reading success. Research suggests that code-related skills such as phonological awareness skills are crucial in early reading success, with their influence on early reading independent of other language and cognitive difficulties (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008; Stanovich, 1986). Phonological awareness skills are those that reflect children’s “ability to detect and manipulate the sound structure of words independent of their meaning” (p. 3, Phillips et al., 2008). Skills such as these are often referred to as code-related skills because they are involved in children’s ability to “crack” the letter–sounds–spelling–reading code. Children with poorer code-related phonological skills in kindergarten and first grade have more difficulty reading and understanding written words than do their peers and are more likely to be referred for special education services (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). By first grade, there are substantial differences in the frequency of children’s independent reading activities that are related to early difficulty (or proficiency) with code-related skills (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997). These reading differences expand during subsequent grades (Biemiller, 1993), with poor readers struggling more and reading substantially less than their peers. Children with disabilities (Kaderavek & Pakulski, 2007) and those who are at risk because they are from low-income families or speak a language other than English at home (Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children, 1998) may be especially at risk for future reading difficulties when they enter kindergarten knowing fewer letters and having less understanding of letters and sounds than their peers do. Thus, finding ways to promote children’s interest in literacy activities may give children, especially children who are at risk, more opportunities to engage in literacy activities and allow them to practice code-related skills in meaningful and enjoyable ways.

Home Literacy Environment

There is a substantial body of evidence pointing to the importance of the home literacy environment (HLE) in supporting young children’s development of early literacy skills (Griffin & Morrison, 1997). In a 5-year longitudinal study, Sénéchal and LeFevre (2002) found complex associations between literacy experiences at home and children’s reading achievement. Both parent–child book reading and parents’ teaching about reading and writing were related to children’s development of receptive language and code-focused phonological awareness skills associated with subsequent reading performance. Associations between children’s development of code-related skills, such as letter knowledge and the child’s HLE, have been reported in studies with children from low- (Bracken & Fischel, 2008) and middle-income families (Frijters, Barron, & Brunello, 2000). These associations remain even after controlling for socioeconomic and educational factors associated with early literacy achievement (Griffin & Morrison, 1997). Like emergent literacy skills, there is also some evidence that HLE contributes to children’s interest in literacy activities (Bracken & Fischel, 2008; Farver, Xu, Eppe, & Lonigan, 2006; Weigel, Martin, & Bennett, 2006). However, there are other reports that interest and HLE are independent factors (Deckner, Adamson, & Bakeman, 2006; Frijters et al., 2000).

HLE may contribute to children’s early literacy skills and interest in literacy activities in two ways. Caregivers can support the development of children’s early literacy skills by actively participating in literacy activities with the child (e.g., shared reading), thus providing children with the opportunity to participate in literacy activities and use their emergent literacy skills. Caregivers can also model literacy activities (e.g., reading a newspaper while the child is present). Although the child is not actively participating in the literacy activity, the caregiver creates an environment in which literacy is valued. Burgess, Hecht, and Lonigan (2002) described these two dimensions of HLE as active (referring to the former) and passive (referring to the latter). Research suggests that both dimensions of HLE are related to children’s early literacy skills and literacy interest, although the associations may vary, with active HLE being more strongly related to early literacy skills and literacy interest than passive HLE (Burgess et al., 2002; Griffin & Morrison, 1997; Weigel et al., 2006).

Measuring Literacy Interest in Preschool

How do parents and teachers know what children find interesting? The most common approach to assessing young children’s interests has been to ask parents about children’s enjoyment of literacy activities (e.g., shared book reading) and the frequency with which children engage in these activities at home (cf. Bracken & Fischel, 2008; Farver et al., 2006). Results of studies that have asked parents about children’s interests have found associations between children’s interests and their performance on tasks assessing phonological awareness and vocabulary skills (Bracken & Fischel, 2008; Farver et al., 2006). Associations between observers’ ratings of children’s interests and children’s literacy skills have also been reported (Deckner et al., 2006; Justice et al., 2003). Another approach to understanding children’s interests that has not been used with preschool children is to ask children how much they like or enjoy different activities. An advantage to this approach is that it provides a way to explore children’s interests across multiple contexts, both at school and at home. As well, asking children about their own interests addresses concerns about social desirability inherent in parents’ reports. That is, parents may report that their child is interested in literacy activities or that the parent often participates in literacy activities with the child because that is what “good” parents and children do (Roberts, Jurgens, & Burchinal, 2005).

Although published studies have not used child-report measures of preschool children’s literacy interest, child self-report measures have been used with older children (e.g., Frijters et al., 2000; Sonnenschein & Munsterman, 2002). In addition, preschool children’s reports have been used in other areas (e.g., parenting behavior, peer sociometric ratings, motivational beliefs about science) and have shown evidence of reliability and validity (Asher, Singleton, Tinsley, & Hymel, 1979; Mantzicopoulos, Patrick, & Samarapungavan, 2008; Sessa, Avenvoli, Steinberg, & Morris, 2001). Moreover, in a study using three types of reports of maternal parenting behavior (i.e., maternal reports, child reports, and observer ratings by a researcher) child reports correlated with observer ratings, whereas maternal reports did not correlate with either. Children in this study were 4- to 6-year-olds (Sessa et al., 2001). Thus, there is evidence that young children can be accurate informants who might be able to report their interest in literacy activities.

Interest and Children At Risk

Although studies have begun to explore the role literacy interest plays in relation to early literacy skills, few studies have specifically focused on children who are at risk due to low scores on receptive language. Both studies by Bracken and Fischel (2008) and Farver et al. (2006) examined literacy interest in groups of children from low-income families. Many of these children scored below the mean on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Revised (PPVT-R; Dunn & Dunn, 1981) and Third edition (PPVT-III; Dunn & Dunn, 1997) and the Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP; Dunn, Lugo, Padilla, & Dunn, 1997), with mean scores of 85.07 and 86.30, respectively. However, neither study specifically examined the pattern of relations between interest and early literacy skills for children who scored significantly below the mean on receptive language tasks compared to children who performed at higher levels. Children who had lower scores on oral language tasks were more likely to have lower scores on code-related tasks as well (Dickinson, McCabe, Anastasopoulos, Peisner-Feinberg, & Poe, 2003; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). Understanding the role of interest in relation to code-related skills for these children may be especially important in suggesting a means of intervening to help improve these children’s early literacy skills.

The Current Study

The objective of the current study is to extend previous research on the associations among children’s interest in literacy, literacy experiences at home, and emergent literacy skills using a child-report measure of literacy interest. Examining this topic from a bioecological framework, we expect that both person characteristics (e.g., child literacy interest) and context variables (e.g., literacy experiences at home) will contribute to children’s code-related emergent literacy skills (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Although we acknowledge that many other person characteristics and context variables contribute to emergent literacy skills, the focus of this study has been narrowed to examine only literacy interest and HLE. In particular, we focus on children who are at risk for reading difficulties when they enter kindergarten because they live in poverty. We examine the associations among child interest and home literacy experiences on children’s development of code-related skills, focusing particularly on the children who are most at risk (with receptive language standardized scores of ≥1 standard deviation less than the mean on the PPVT-III). The research questions of interest include the following:

To what extent are children’s self-reports of interest in literacy activities and parents’ reports of the home literacy environment associated with children’s code-related emergent literacy skills?

To what extent are patterns of associations among children’s interest, home literacy, and code-related skills different for children with lower receptive language scores (1 standard deviation less than the mean) compared to children with age-level receptive language scores (at the mean of 100 or above)?

Method

Participants

Participants were eighty-one 4- and 5-year-old children (M = 55.9 months, SD = 3.5, boys n = 46) and their parents. Children and their parents were participating in a larger kindergarten readiness study and were eligible because they were entering kindergarten the following year. Children were enrolled in Head Start programs or local child care centers that served children from low-income families in small to midsized midwestern towns. Of these children, 67% were White, 17% were African American, 12% were Hispanic/Latino, and 4% were multiracial or from other ethnic groups. Parents’ highest level of education ranged greatly from no high school degree to a college or professional degree, with 15% of parents reporting no high school degree, 56% of parents reporting a high school/GED as their highest degree, 12% of parents reporting a 2-year college degree, and 17% of parents reporting a 4-year college degree or higher.

Procedures

We recruited children who were 4 years old or older from five preschool centers at the beginning of the school year (three Head Start centers, n = 46, and two local child care centers, n = 35). Children with identified disabilities were eligible to participate. A total of nine classrooms (five Head Start, four child care) were included, with 6 to 12 students from each class. Researchers recruited participants at the Head Start screening days or during pick-up times at the child care centers. Parents who gave consent were asked to complete questionnaires focused on family characteristics and HLE. During the fall of the preschool year, children were assessed on three emergent literacy skills: alphabet knowledge, letter–word knowledge, and receptive language. In addition, children’s interest in literacy activities was measured. (See Table 1 for descriptive statistics.) Children were assessed individually on emergent literacy skills and literacy interest in a quiet room at the preschool center during the school day by one of three trained research assistants. One child whose parent gave consent refused to be tested and was dropped from the study. Two other children refused part way through or were absent. Because they had partial data, they were included in as many analyses as possible.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Home Literacy, Interest, and Emergent Literacy Measures

Measures	n	M	SD	Range
HLE
Active
Total sample	81	3.13	0.49	1.80-4.00
Age-level	27	3.10	0.46	2.20-4.00
Low	22	3.06	0.62	1.80-4.00
Passive
Total sample	81	2.59	0.77	1.00-4.00
Age-level	27	2.34	0.67	1.00-3.57
Low	22	2.38	0.78	1.00-3.57
Children’s interest
Interest
Total sample	80	2.15	0.61	1.00-3.00
Age-level	27	2.15	0.61	1.00-3.00
Low	22	2.06	0.72	1.00-3.00
Emergent literacy measure
PPVT-III
Total sample	79	92.40	14.10	42.00-117.00
Age-level	27	106.20	5.31	100.00-117.00
Low	22	75.27	10.84	42.00-84.00
Letter–word knowledge
Total sample	81	320.10	22.60	264.00-369.00
Age-level	27	328.70	19.57	293.00-369.00
Low	22	308.10	26.57	264.00-359.00

Note: Raw score mean composites were used in this table for HLE variables to make interpretation easier. Z score mean composites were used in analyses.

Measures

Family Demographics

Information on each family’s demographic characteristics was obtained through the Family Information Survey (Odom et al., 2003). This questionnaire contained 18 items, including those related to parents’ education level, child’s age, gender, and ethnicity. Parents completed the questionnaire in the fall at the beginning of their child’s prekindergarten year.

HLE

HLE was assessed through the Reading at Home Questionnaire developed for this study. This measure consisted of 12 items divided into two dimensions following Burgess et al. (2002): Active and Passive. Active HLE included five items: Number of times per week parents read to their child, number of minutes per day parents read to their child, number of children’s books in the home, frequency of trips to the library, and age of child when shared reading began (α = .67). The first four items were rated on scales ranging from 3 to 5 points. Child age when reading started was scored on a 6-point scale ranging from less than 12 months to not yet reading to the child. Passive HLE included seven items: number of times per week parents read, number of minutes per day parents read (not including reading to the child), number of grown-up books in the home, how much parents enjoy reading, likelihood that parents would read, how often parents read, and how often child sees parent reading (α = .87). Items were rated on scales ranging from 3 to 5 points. Z scores were computed for all items and averaged to form the two composite HLE variables. Similar items have been used in a sample of 380 caregivers. Overall internal consistency reliability in this sample for all of the items was adequate (α = .72; Powell, Diamond, & Baroody, 2009).

Children’s Oral Language Skills

Children’s receptive language

Children’s receptive language was measured using Form A of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Third Edition (PPVT-III; Dunn & Dunn, 1997). For children ages 4 and 5 years, the PPVT-III is reported to have high internal reliability (α = .95) and good test–retest reliability (r = .92). Standard scores were calculated and used in analyses.

Children’s Code-Related Skills

Letter–word knowledge

Letter–word knowledge was assessed with the Woodcock-Johnson Letter–Word Identification Subtest 1 (Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Achievement [WJ III ACH]; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001). Children were shown letters and words and asked to point to or name them. The median reliability for this subtest is .91 (Mather & Woodcock, 2001). W scores were used in the analyses.

Alphabet knowledge

Children’s alphabet knowledge was assessed using the FACES QRS Letter Naming assessment (Westat, 2003). Children were shown three plates, one at a time. Each plate included eight to nine uppercase letters (e.g., A, O, S, B, E, C, D, X). The child was asked to name all of the letters she knew. The number of letters the child named correctly was used in the analyses. Because children’s alphabet knowledge scores were not normally distributed, we created a dichotomous variable: knowing few letters (0-9) or knowing many or most letters (10-26). These categories were based on both the distribution of these data and Head Start letter-knowledge objectives (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000). Sixty-seven percent of children (54 children) named few letters (reference group), and 33% (26 children) named 10 or more letters. One child did not have an alphabet knowledge score.

Children’s Interest in Literacy Activities

Child-reported literacy interest

Children’s interest was assessed through the Children’s Interest measure, which consists of 18 items that include reading, letters, writing, math, and science (Baroody, Diamond, & Hong, 2006). The measure has two scales (i.e., math/science and literacy). The literacy scale is the focus of this study. First, four sample food items (e.g., asparagus, ice cream) were administered to familiarize the children with the measure. For each food item, the tester pointed to three faces (i.e., a smiling face, a neutral face, and a frowning face) while asking if the child liked the food a lot, a little, or not at all, an approach similar to that used in collecting sociometric assessments from preschool children (e.g., Asher et al., 1979). Following administration of the food items, children were shown 18 different pictures, each of which represented a literacy or science/math activity, and asked whether they liked to do that activity a lot, a little, or not at all. The order of the response options was reversed (i.e., not at all, a little, or a lot) for 8 of the 18 items to reduce response position bias. Items were scored so that 3 points were assigned for a lot, 2 points for a little, and 1 point for not at all. Nine items formed the literacy interest scale (α = .84). Three items focused on reading (e.g., “Listening to your teacher read books at group time”), three on letters (e.g., “Learning about the names of letters”), and three on writing (e.g., “Writing letters and words”). Similar items were used in an intervention study with 228 children. The alpha for that sample was adequate (α = .74; Powell et al., 2009).

Analysis Plan

We used both hierarchical and logistic regression analyses to examine relations between parent-reported HLE (Active and Passive), child-reported literacy interest, and children’s code-related skills. Children’s gender, parents’ education level, and children’s standardized PPVT-III scores were included as covariates in each analysis. To address the second research question in which we examined differences in patterns of associations among children’s interest, home literacy, and code-related skills different for children with lower receptive language scores compared to children with age-level receptive language scores, we divided children into two groups based on receptive language scores. Children with low receptive language scores (n = 22) were those children who had PPVT-III standard scores of 85 or less (at least 1 standard deviation less than the mean). Children in this group were 9 girls and 13 boys (M = 56.6 months, SD = 4.0). Of these children, 59% were White, 36% were African American, and 5% were Hispanic/Latino. Eighty-two percent of parents reported High School/GED as their highest degree. Children with PPVT-III standard scores of 100 or greater were selected to represent children with age-level receptive language scores (n = 27). Children in this group were 14 girls and 13 boys (M = 55.2 months, SD = 3.4). Of these children, 78% were White, 11% were African American, and 11% were Hispanic/Latino. Seventy-four percent of parents reported high school/GED as their highest degree. Groups were compared on demographic characteristics. No mean group differences were found except with respect to ethnicity, F(1, 47) = 4.52, p < .05. There were more African American children in the low receptive language group. However, ethnicity was not included in analyses because parent education level was already entered as a control variable.

Results

To what extent are children’s reports of literacy interest and parents’ reports of the HLE associated with children’s code-related emergent literacy skills?

Correlation analyses were conducted among the variables (see Table 2). Active and passive HLE were significantly related, r(81) = .47, p < .01. However neither active nor passive HLE were related to child-reported literacy interest: r(80) = .12, p = .29, and r(80) = .06, p = .62, respectively. We examined the relations among parent-reported HLE (active and passive), child-reported literacy interest, and children’s code-related skills in two separate regression analyses. In each analysis, children’s gender, parents’ education level, and children’s standardized PPVT-III scores were entered as controls in the first block. Parent-reported active and passive HLE and child-reported literacy interest were entered together in the second block. In the first analysis, there was a significant association between child-reported literacy interest and children’s letter–word identification scores (β = .21, p = .05) but no association between neither active (β = .07, p = .59) nor passive (β = –.04, p = .74) HLE and letter–word identification scores.

Table 2.

Intercorrelations Among Home Literacy Environment, Interest, and Emergent Literacy Skills

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Child gender	–
2. Parent education	.11 (81)	–
3. PPVT-III	−.16 (79)	.22^† (79)	–
4. Parent-reported active HLE	−.15 (81)	.21^† (81)	.12 (79)	–
5. Parent-reported passive HLE	−.08 (81)	.22^† (81)	.01 (79)	.47** (81)	–
6. Child-reported interest	−.18 (80)	.12 (80)	.10 (79)	.12 (80)	.06 (80)	–
7. Letter–word knowledge	−.24* (81)	.24* (81)	.35** (79)	.18 (81)	.06 (81)	.29** (80)	–

Note: Girl is the reference group.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

In the second regression analysis, we used a binary logistic regression to examine the relations among HLE, child-reported interest in literacy activities, and alphabet knowledge (a categorical variable where 0 = knowing 0-9 letters, and 1 = knowing 10-26 letters). Results revealed that child-reported interest predicted children’s alphabet knowledge after controlling for parent’s education level, gender, and PPVT-III standardized scores. The Nagelkerke pseudo R² for the final model was .31, which was a marginal change of .10 (p < .10) from the control-only model. Children who reported higher levels of interest in literacy activities were 1.20 [exp(3.31)] times more likely to know 10 or more letters than those who reported lower levels of interest in literacy activities. Although neither active nor passive HLE predicted children’s alphabet knowledge, the overall fit of the model was adequate, χ²(6, N = 79) = 20.04, p < .01, indicating that the predictors as a set reliably predicted children’s alphabet knowledge.

To what extent are there significant differences in self-reported interest or parents’ reports of the HLE for children with low receptive language scores and children with age-level receptive language scores?

To address the second question, ANOVAs were conducted to examine mean differences between children with low receptive language scores (PPVT-III standard scores of 85 or less) and children with age-level receptive language scores (PPVT-III standard scores of 100 or greater). Children with age-level receptive language scores had slightly higher parent-reported active HLE and child-reported interest, but slightly lower parent-reported passive HLE scores (see Table 1); however, mean differences were not significant: active HLE, F(1, 47) = 0.10, p = .76, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .00; passive HLE, F(1, 47) = 0.04, p = .83, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .00; and child-reported interest, F(1, 47) = 0.24, p = .63, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01.

The analyses for Question 1 were repeated to examine the patterns of relations among the variables for each group. Children’s gender and parent’s education level were entered as controls. PPVT-III scores were not entered as a control because these scores were used as a selection criterion for creating the subsamples. A separate regression model was conducted for each predictor (i.e., active HLE, passive HLE, and child-reported literacy interest) because the sample sizes are small.

For the children with low receptive language scores, although active and passive HLE were related, r(22) = .42, p = .05, neither was related to child-reported literacy interest—active: r(22) = .09, p = .71; passive: r(22) = .01, p = .95, respectively. None of the predictors were significantly related to letter–word identification scores, and the regression coefficients for active and passive HLE were close to zero (β = .01, p = .96, and β = .05, p = .80, respectively). The regression coefficient for child-reported interest was similar in size to the one for the whole sample (β = .22, p = .31), although it was not significant probably because of the small sample size. None of the predictor variables significantly predicted children’s alphabet knowledge.

For the children with age-level receptive language scores, active and passive HLE were significantly related, r(22) = .50, p < .01; and active, r(27) = .38, p = .05, but not passive r(27) = .27, p = .18, HLE was associated with child-reported literacy interest. In this group, child-reported interest predicted children’s alphabet knowledge after controlling for parent’s education level and gender. The Nagelkerke pseudo R² for the final model was .60, which was a significant change of .21 (p < .05) from the control-only model. Children who reported higher levels of interest in literacy activities were 2.65 [exp(14.18)] times more likely to know 10 or more letters. The overall fit of the model was adequate, χ²(3, N = 27) = 15.74, p < .01, indicating that the predictors as a set reliably predict children’s alphabet knowledge. Neither active, β = .37, p = .09, nor passive, β = –.13, p = .57, HLE was significantly related to letter–word identification scores. Although there was not a significant association between letter–word identification scores and child-reported literacy interest (β = .34, p = .10), this is likely because of the small number of children included in the analysis.

Discussion

Results from the current study provide evidence that children’s self-reported interest in literacy-related activities is related to preschool children’s code-related emergent literacy skills. These findings are consistent with previous studies using child-reported literacy interest measures with older children (Frijters et al., 2000) and with studies using different methods of measuring child interest (e.g., parent-report, observation) with preschool children (Bracken & Fischel, 2008; Deckner et al., 2006; Farver et al., 2006). It appears that as with other methods of measuring preschool children’s literacy interest, child-reported interest also taps an individual characteristic that is related to children’s knowledge of letters and words.

Overall, this study suggests that children who report higher levels of literacy interest are likely to also know more letters and do better on tasks that require identification of letters and words. This is important because letter knowledge is a good predictor of children’s reading development (Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994). Children’s code-related skills in preschool, which include letter–word identification and alphabet knowledge, are related to kindergarten literacy skills, which in turn are related to reading and language skills in first and second grade and finally related to third- and fourth-grade reading comprehension (Storch & Whitehurst, 2002).

Further analyses suggest that these patterns among child-reported interest and code-related skills may differ based on children’s receptive language skills. We found weaker associations between child-reported literacy interest and letter–word identification scores in the group of children with low receptive language scores compared to children with age-level receptive language scores. In addition, child-reported literacy interest does not predict alphabet knowledge for children with low receptive language scores whereas it is a strong predictor of alphabet knowledge for children with age-level receptive language scores.

Viewed from a bioecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), this pattern of results reflects the importance of person characteristics (children’s interest and receptive language ability) in the development of early literacy skills. Although we focus on these person characteristics in analyses, we suspect that they are associated with different proximal processes that support early learning. Specifically, it may be that children’s poorer language skills make it harder for them to engage in literacy activities because they may have more difficulty entering into the activity, asking to participate, or expressing their interest and having it reinforced by peers or adults. Also, children with poorer language skills may have a harder time understanding instruction, which would make it difficult to learn code-related skills. These differences between children with age-level receptive language scores and those with low receptive language scores may feed on themselves, leading to children with lower receptive language scores falling further and further behind their peers, a situation described as the Matthew effect (Stanovich, 1986).

Limitations

The purpose of the current study was to examine the patterns of relations among HLE, child interest in literacy, and emergent literacy skills using a child-report measure for literacy interest. However, this study is limited in that only one measure of children’s literacy interest was used. Thus, it is possible that differences in samples and procedures among this study and other published studies could account for differences in patterns of association. Using parent- and child-reported interest within the same study would provide multiple approaches to understanding children’s interest in literacy activities within the same sample of children and would allow for a methodologically stronger comparison of different measurement strategies.

In addition, only one measure of language was used to classify children into groups for comparisons. The PPVT-III only assesses receptive language; thus, comparisons are limited to one aspect of language. Furthermore, only one test was used to classify children as being at risk for reading difficulties. This classification should be viewed tentatively because multiple tests or testing sessions should be used before children are classified as at risk. Because all these children are from low-income families, the findings from this study should only be generalized to similar populations of children.

Another limitation of the study is that children’s HLE and receptive language were not related in the current study, which is inconsistent with results from other studies and raises issues of generalizability (Bracken & Fischel, 2008; Farver et al., 2006; Frijters et al., 2000). This inconsistent finding may be due, in part, to different items on the HLE measure (e.g., Farver et al., 2006 asked parents about a broader range of literacy activities at home than we did) or differences on the scale of measurement (e.g., Bracken and Fischel’s scales contained a broader range of response options compared to our response options). Further research is needed to understand this inconsistent finding. Measures of HLE, interest, and emergent literacy skills were all collected in the fall of the preschool year, and it is unclear if these associations extend beyond concurrent relations. Finally, we note that the small sample size limited our power to detect effects, particularly in subsample analyses.

Future Research

Further research is needed to better understand the role of preschool children’s literacy interest in relation to emergent literacy outcomes. Few studies have examined children’s interest over time, across contexts, or in populations of children who are at risk because of low receptive language scores. It is important to determine if interest is a factor that can be used to predict literacy skills longitudinally and if it is stable across contexts. Knowing if children’s literacy interest changes over time or context may be important in understanding how interest relates to HLE and emergent literacy outcomes.

Finding valid and reliable ways to measure interest would also be helpful in identifying differences in children’s interest levels and adjusting teaching and curricula in ways that promote interest. Exploring multiple ways of measuring interest within the same study would allow for a direct comparison of different methods of measuring interest. In addition, tying child reports of interest with observations of children’s engagement in literacy activities would be another way to address measurement questions and could provide additional insight into understanding child literacy interest and how it is related to emergent literacy skills.

Implications

Better understanding preschool children’s literacy interest and developing ways to measure it have practical implications within the preschool context. Understanding what factors are related to interest in children who are at risk and examining how to increase their enjoyment of and engagement in literacy activities has implications for preschool curricula and activities, as well as offering another means of early intervention. Developmentally appropriate activities that support children’s acquisition of important literacy skills and at the same time enhance their interest in and enjoyment of literacy activities may be especially valuable both in the home and preschool settings (cf. Dunst et al., 2001; Gettinger & Stoiber, 2008). Providing teachers with tools that allow them to easily and quickly assess interest is important in order to know which activities enhance or promote children’s literacy interest. The child interest measure used in this study is one such measure.

Understanding children’s literacy interest and its relation to HLE and emergent literacy skills will help researchers, educators, and parents better understand how to promote young children’s literacy interest. This in turn could be used to assist children in developing emergent literacy skills during the preschool years to ensure that all children enter school with the basic literacy skills needed to enable them to succeed.

Footnotes

We note with appreciation the cooperation that we received from children, families, teachers, and administrators. The study design, data, and interpretations are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the funding sources or the preschool programs.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: This research was supported in part by a grant from NICHD (R01HD046091) to Indiana University with a subcontract to Purdue University.

References

Ainley

Hidi

Berndorff

(2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 545–561.

Asher

S. R.

Singleton

L. C.

Tinsley

B. R.

Hymel

(1979). A reliable sociometric measure for preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 15, 443–444.

Baroody

A. E.

Diamond

Hong

(2006). Children’s interest measure. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.

Biemiller

(1993). Lake Wobegon revisited: On diversity and education. Educational Researcher, 22, 7–12.

Bowman

B. T.

Donovan

M. S.

Burns

M. S.

(2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bracken

S. S.

Fischel

J. E.

(2008). Family reading behavior and early literacy skills in preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Education and Development, 19, 45–67.

Bronfenbrenner

Morris

P. A.

(2006). The bioecological model of human development. In Lerner

R. M.

Damon

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Burgess

S. R.

Hecht

S. A.

Lonigan

C. J.

(2002). Relations of the home literacy environment (HLE) to the development of reading-related ability: A one year longitudinal study. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 408–426.

Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children; Snow

C. E.

Burns

M. S.

Griffin

(Ed.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

10.

Cunningham

A. E.

Stanovich

K. E.

(1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934–945.

11.

Deckner

D. F.

Adamson

L. B.

Bakeman

(2006). Child and maternal contributions to shared reading: Effects on language and literacy development. Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 31–41.

12.

Denton

West

(2002). Children’s reading and mathematics achievement in kindergarten and first grade. Education Statistics Quarterly, 4, 19–26.

13.

Dickinson

D. K.

McCabe

Anastasopoulos

Peisner-Feinberg

E. S.

Poe

M. D.

(2003). The comprehensive language approach to early literacy: The interrelationships among vocabulary, phonological sensitivity, and print knowledge among preschool-aged children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 465–481.

14.

Dunn

L. M.

Dunn

L. M.

(1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

15.

Dunn

L. M.

Dunn

L. L.

(1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

16.

Dunn

L. M.

Lugo

D. E.

Padilla

E. R.

Dunn

L. M.

(1997). Vocabulario en Imágenes Peabody (TVIP). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

17.

Dunst

C. J.

Bruder

M. B.

Trivette

C. M.

Hamby

Raab

McLean

(2001). Characteristics and consequences of everyday natural learning opportunities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21, 68–92.

18.

Farver

J. M.

Lonigan

C. J.

Eppe

(2009). Effective early literacy skills development for young Spanish-speaking English language learners: An experimental study of two methods. Child Development, 80, 703–719.

19.

Farver

J. M.

Eppe

Lonigan

C. J.

(2006). Home environment and young Latino children’s school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 196–212.

20.

Frijters

J. C.

Barron

R. W.

Brunello

(2000). Direct and mediated influences of home literacy and literacy interest on prereaders’ oral vocabulary and early written language skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 466–477.

21.

Gettinger

Stoiber

(2008). Applying a response-to-intervention model for early literacy development in low-income children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 198–213.

22.

Griffin

E. A.

Morrison

F. J.

(1997). The unique contribution of home literacy environment to differences in early literacy skills. Early Child Development and Care, 127–128, 233–243.

23.

Justice

L. M.

Chow

S.-M.

Capellini

Flanigan

Colton

(2003). Emergent literacy intervention for vulnerable preschoolers: Relative effects of two approaches. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 320–332.

24.

Kaderavek

J. N.

Pakulski

L. A.

(2007). Mother-child story book interactions: Literacy orientation of pre-schoolers with hearing impairment. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 7, 49–72.

25.

Lonigan

C. J.

Driscoll

Phillips

B. M.

Cantor

B. G.

Anthony

J. L.

Goldstein

(2003) A computer-assisted instruction phonological sensitivity program for preschool children at-risk for reading problems. Journal of Early Intervention, 25, 248–262.

26.

Mantzicopoulos

Patrick

Samarapungavan

(2008). Young children’s motivational beliefs about learning science. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 378–394.

27.

Mather

Woodcock

R. W.

(2001). Examiner’s manual. Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

28.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). America’s kindergartners: Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, kindergarten class of 1998-99, Fall 1998 (NCES Publication No. 2000-070). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

29.

National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

30.

Odom

Butera

Diamond

Hanson

Horn

Lieber

Palmer

(2003). Children’s School Success. Indiana University, Bloomington.

31.

Phillips

B. M.

Clancy-Menchetti

Lonigan

C. J.

(2008). Successful phonological awareness instruction with preschool children: Lessons from the classroom. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28, 3–17.

32.

Powell

D. R.

Diamond

K. E.

Baroody

A. E.

(2009). Parent and child measures of home literacy environment and interest. Unpublished raw data.

33.

Roberts

Jurgens

Burchinal

(2005). The role of home literacy practices in preschool children’s language and emergent literacy skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 345–359.

34.

Scott-Little

Kagan

S. L.

Frelow

V. S.

(2006). Conceptualization of readiness and the content of early learning standards: The intersection of policy and research? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 153–173.

35.

Sénéchal

LeFevre

(2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 445–460.

36.

Sessa

F. M.

Avenvoli

Steinberg

Morris

A. S.

(2001). Correspondence among informants on parenting: Preschool children, mothers, and observers. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 53–68.

37.

Sonnenschein

Munsterman

(2002). The influence of home-based reading interactions on 5-year-olds’ reading motivation and early literacy development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 318–337.

38.

Stanovich

K. E.

(1986). Matthew Effect in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.

39.

Storch

S. A.

Whitehurst

G. J.

(2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934–947.

40.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (2000). Head Start Child Outcomes Framework. Retrieved from http://www.hsnrc.org/CDI/content.cfm

41.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Child and Families. (2003). Head Start Child Outcomes Framework. Retrieved from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc

42.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Child and Families. (2010). Head Start Program Performance Standards and Other Regulations [45 CFR 1304.21].

Retrieved June 2, 2010

from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/Program%20Design%20and%20Management/Head%20Start%20Requirements/Head%20Start%20Requirements/1304/1304.21%20Education%20and%20early%20childhood%20development.htm

43.

Wagner

R. K.

Torgesen

J. K.

Rashotte

C. A.

(1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73–87.

44.

Weigel

D. J.

Martin

S. S.

Bennett

K. K.

(2006). Contributions of the home literacy environment to preschool-aged children’s emerging literacy and language skills. Early Child Development and Care, 176, 357–378.

45.

Westat (2003). Family and Child Experiences Survey QRS Letter Naming. Rockville, MD: Author.

46.

Whitehurst

G. J.

Lonigan

C. J.

(1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848–872.

47.

Woodcock

R. W.

McGrew

K. S.

Mather

(2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.