Project EASE: The Effect of a Family Literacy Project on Kindergarten Students' Early Literacy Skills

Project EASE: The Effect of a Family Literacy Project on Kindergarten Students' EarlyLiteracy SkillsAuthor(s): Gail E. Jordan, Catherine E. Snow and Michelle V. PorcheSource: Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct. - Nov. - Dec., 2000), pp. 524-546Published by: Wiley on behalf of the International Reading AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/748097 .

Accessed: 29/09/2014 13:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and International Reading Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Reading Research Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:35:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ira

http://www.jstor.org/stable/748097?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Reading Research Quarterly Vol. 35, No. 4

October/November/December 2000

?2000 International Reading Association (pp. 524-546)

Project EASE: The effect of a family literacy project on

kindergarten students' early literacy skills

Gail E. Jordan Bethel College, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Catherine E. Snow Michelle V. Porche

Harvard University Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

any accomplishments during the preschool and kindergarten years are strongly related to later success in con- ventional literacy tasks (Adams, 1990;

Mason & Allen, 1986; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). These early accomplishments include skills directly related to literacy, such as letter identification, reading environmental print, and phonological awareness; they also include oral language skills, particularly vocabulary and skills in understanding and producing extended discourse (e.g., McCormick & Mason, 1986a; Snow et al., 1998; Snow, Tabors, Nicholson, & Kurland, 1994). Children who arrive in first grade with more knowledge of letters, deeper phonological awareness, greater famil- iarity with environmental print, the ability to recognize sight words with greater speed and accuracy, and with larger vocabularies are more likely to learn to read without difficulty (Purcell-Gates & Dahl, 1991).

Although excellent preschool and kindergarten classrooms can provide children with opportunities to learn and refine these skills, it is widely acknowledged that linguistically rich home environments contribute more powerfully to the early development of these critical abili-

ties (Bus, van Ijzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995; Hart & Risley, 1999; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994). Differences in home environments have been linked to differences in early reading achievement, and later school success (Heath, 1983; Wells, 1985). Although excellent formal reading instruction can ensure success in literacy even for high-risk readers, substantial efforts to recruit the partner- ship of families greatly increase the chances of success (Edwards, 1995; Edwards, Pleasants, & Franklin, 1999).

In this article, we report on the effect of an intervention program, Project EASE, designed to provide parents both with a theoretical understanding of how to help their children and with scaffolded interactive practices to facilitate their children's early literacy development. This

program provided particular support for parents' involvement in their children's oral language development, focusing on vocabulary, narratives, and exposition.

Theoretical context The intervention was designed to incorporate prin-

ciples derived from research on the predictors of reading outcomes, as well as insights from effective parenting ed-

524



ABSTRACTS1

Project EASE: The effect of a family literacy project on kindergarten students' early literacy skills A year long intervention project was carried out with 248 kinder-

garten students, composed of 71 students in a control group and 177 students whose parents participated in an experimental program that included parent education sessions, at-school parent/child activities, and at-home book-mediated activities. The intervention, Early Access to Success in Education (Project EASE), was designed to increase the frequency and quality of language interactions through book-centered activities and to give parents information about and

opportunities for engagement in their children's developing literacy abilities. Parents received information about ways to strengthen vo-

cabulary, extend narrative understanding, develop letter recognition and sound awareness, produce narrative retellings, and understand

exposition. Measures of home literacy support were collected from

parents and a battery of language and literacy tests were adminis-

tered to intervention and comparison children prior to the intervention and at its conclusion. Children whose families engaged in the at- school and at-home activities made significantly greater gains in lan-

guage scores as measured on subtests of vocabulary, story comprehension, and sequencing in story-telling than comparison children. The greatest gains were found in those low-achieving students who started out with low language skills at pretest and strong home literacy support. Parents in general showed high levels of participation in the prescribed activities, and they reported high levels of satisfaction. The study demonstrates the potential for schools to en-

gage parents in a meaningful way in supporting their children's lit-

eracy development, and the sensitivity of children's oral language skills to the impact of structured enrichments.

Proyecto EASE: El efecto de un proyecto de alfabetizaci6n familiar sobre las habilidades tempranas de lectoescritura de niflos de preescolar

Se Ilev6 a cabo un proyecto de intervenci6n de un ahio de duraci6n con 248 estudiantes de preescolar, que comprendian un grupo control de 71 estudiantes y 177 estudiantes cuyos padres participaron en un programa experimental que incluia sesiones de educaci6n para padres, actividades padre/hijo en la escuela y actividades con libros en el hogar. La intervenci6n Acceso Temprano al Exito en Educaci6n (Proyecto EASE) fue disefiada para aumentar la frecuencia y calidad de las interacciones con el lenguaje a traves de actividades con libros y para dar a los padres informaci6n y oportunidades de involucrarse en el desarrollo de las habilidades de lectoescritura de sus hijos. Los padres recibieron informaci6n acerca de formas para acrecentar el vocabulario, extender la comprensi6n narrativa, desarrollar el re- conocimiento de letras y la conciencia fonol6gica, producir recuentos de historias y comprender la exposici6n. Se recogieron medidas del apoyo a la lectoescritura en el hogar y se administr6 una bateria de

pruebas de lenguaje y lectoescritura a los nifios que participaron de la intervenci6n y a los controles, antes de la intervenci6n y al finalizar la misma. Los nifios cuyas familias participaron en las actividades en la escuela y en el hogar hicieron significativamente mas progresos que los controles en lenguaje, medido por pruebas de vocabulario, com- prensi6n de historias y secuenciaci6n en el relato de historias. Los mayores progresos se registraron en los estudiantes de bajo rendimiento, que mostraron un desempenio bajo en habilidades lingiiisticas en el pretest y que recibieron un fuerte apoyo en el hogar. Los padres, en general, mostraron niveles de participaci6n altos en las actividades prescriptas y reportaron niveles altos de satisfacci6n. El estudio demuestra el potencial de las escuelas para involucrar a los padres de una forma significativa en el proceso de alfabetizaci6n de sus hijos y la sensibilidad de las habilidades de lenguaje oral de los nihios al impacto de actividades enriquecedoras estructuradas.

Projekt EASE: Der EinfluB eines familienbezogenen Lese- und Schreibprojektes auf die fruihen Lese- und Schreibfertigkeiten von Schuilern im Kindergarten

Ein einjihriges Interventionsprojekt wurde mit 248 Kinder-

gartenschtilern durchgefihrt, bestehend aus 71 Schiilern in einer

Kontrollgruppe und 177 Schilern, deren Eltern an einem experi- mentellen Programm teilnahmen, das Elternfortbildungsvortrige, schulische Eltern-/Kind-Aktivititen, und hiusliche buchbezogene Aktivititen einschlog. Die Intervention, Early Access to Success in Education (Projekt EASE), bzw. Friiher Zugang zum Erfolg in der Fortbildung, wurde entworfen, um die Frequenz und Qualitit im

Sprachaustausch durch buchbezogene Aktivititen zu steigern und um den Eltern Informationen und Gelegenheiten iber und fOr ein Engagement bei der Entwicklung der Lese- und Schreibfdhigkeiten ihrer Kinder zu geben. Die Eltern erhielten Informationen iber M6glichkeiten zur Stirkung des Vokabulars, der Erweiterung des

darstellerisch-erzihlerischen Verstindnisses, der Entwicklung zum Erkennen von Buchstaben und der Klangwahrnehmung, des Pro- duzierens von Nacherzihlungen und im Verstehen von Deutungen und Auslegungen. Derartige Maignahmen zur Unterstfitzung des

hiuslichen Lesens und Schreibens wurden von den Eltern gesammelt

und eine ganze Batterie von Sprach-, Lese- und Schreibtests wurden den Kindern in den Interventions- und Vergleichsgruppen aufer-

legt, sowohl vor der Intervention als auch am Ende nach den

Schlulgerkenntnissen. Abgeleitet aus Grundtests in Vokabeln, Verstindnis der Handlung und Sequenzen in der Erzihlung ergab sich, dais Kinder deren Familien sich an schulischen und hiuslichen Aktivititen beteiligten, wesentlich gr6gere Fortschritte in der Sprachbewertung machten, als Kinder in der Vergleichsgruppe. Die

groblten Fortschritte fand man bei jenen leistungsschwachen SchOlern, die im Vorabtest mit geringen Sprachfertigkeiten begannen und starke hiusliche Unterstitzung beim Lesen und Schreiben erhielten. Allgemein zeigten die Eltern hohe Beteiligungsgrade bei den beschriebenen Aktivititen und sie bestitigten im hohen Grade ihre Zufriedenheit. Die Studie zeigt die M6glichkeiten ffir Schulen auf, Eltern in bedeutsamer Weise bei der Unterstitzung der Schreib- und Leseentwicklung ihrer Kinder mit einzubeziehen und der Sensitivitat

mrindlicher Sprachfertigkeiten der Kinder als einer strukturierten Bereicherung der Einflugfnahme.

525



ABTRCT

•'• -:2 3 ) EASE t bf

-*fMEF C.- R X# If Mill A W1248 A O).fVWM% ?Z A A ;2 !

tttzl t 7 1 A ?-- N If L, 5? FA 9 0)3 17 7 0)a

::h EASE (Early Access to Success in Education) 11. #:4'I'ftb

Dt Icd. &$ #E WE N

~2~,~S~~~l~t ~a~ 47~r , *9~~~ 0)0 * a Ik Uhl

Z E !! - - L, 11 A 0) IN L

qp- &IA it LAtj ~

ct -C R a h'A I t Z L --c 7- It ONO d? \~~-Cil 'A

NQ i I-))A&; 5 Z L- L hT 6 Z) L, 7.D 0 ~~&~1tJ VrEl?~~~i t, U -b3~r~9a,~~~ C~

Le projet EASE : L'effet d'un projet de litteratie familiale sur les premieres competences en litteratie d'el"ves de jardin d'enfants

Un projet d'intervention d'un an a &t? conduit sur 248 l&ves de jardin d'enfants comportant un groupe contr6le de 71 eleves et 177 elIves dont les parents ont particip6 a un programme experimental comportant des sessions d'education des parents, des activites parents-enfants a l'ecole, et des activites de mediation du livre a la maison. L'intervention, Premier Acces a la Reussite Scolaire (Early Access to Success in Education, Projet EASE), a ete con•ue en vue d'augmenter la fr6quence et la qualite des interactions linguistiques au travers d'ac-

tivites centrees sur le livre et de donner aux parents l'information et

loccasion de s'engager dans le developpement des competences de

litteratie de leurs enfants. Les parents ont re?u une information sur la

fa•on de developper le vocabulaire, la comprehension du recit, la reconnaissance des lettres et la conscience des sons, de rappeler un recit, et de comprendre une presentation. On a effectue des mesures du soutien des parents en litteratie A la maison et administre une

batterie de tests de langage et de litteratie aux enfants des deux groupes, avant et apres intervention. Les enfants dont les families se sont engag6es dans les activit6s a l'ecole et a la maison ont obtenu des resultats significativement superieurs aux enfants temoins dans les

epreuves de langage pour les sous-tests de vocabulaire, de comprehension d'histoire, et la structuration des histoires racontees. Les gains les plus importants sont apparus chez les eleves peu perfor- mants presentant des competences linguistiques faibles au pretest et ayant eu un fort soutien en litteratie A la maison. En ge6nral, les parents ont manifeste un haut niveau de participation dans les activites prescrites et un haut niveau de satisfaction. Cette etude demontre qu'il y a dans les ecoles un potentiel permettant d'engager les parents dans une voie significative de soutien au developpement de la lit-

teratie de leurs enfants, et que le langage oral des enfants est sensi- ble A l'impact d'un environnement enrichi.

526



ucation programs. The basic questions addressed in this evaluation of the intervention have to do with the efficacy of parent training and its effect on children's language and literacy abilities.

The research findings underlying this intervention cluster in three areas. The first set of findings suggests that literacy success can be the endpoint of varied developmental pathways. Rather than a single construct, literacy at- tainment is best viewed as a constellation of abilities encompassing both print and language skills. A simplified view of those complex relationships is parsimoniously described by Gough and Tunmer (1986) as being subsumed in two distinct domains: (a) decoding and (b) language comprehension. During the preschool and kindergarten years, these domains correspond to (a) skills in letter recognition, environmental print knowledge, and phonological awareness; and (b) language skills. In this intervention both dimensions of emerging preliteracy skills were addressed, but the focus was on language skills.

The second set of research findings that undergirds Project EASE's intervention demonstrates the powerful contributions of families to children's preliteracy accomplishments. Heath (1983); Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, and Hemphill, (1991); Wells (1983, 1985), and many others have shown that school literacy is a much easier task for children from homes with certain charac- teristics, including parental modeling of literacy, actions to support literacy development, and uses of language that prepare children for classroom discourse. Snow et al. (1991) posited that such preparation is a unique contribution made by homes, through opportunities for participation in high-quality language interactions. It is argued that these interactions prepare children for the language demands that will be encountered during text comprehension after basic word-reading skills are in place. However, such relationships have been documented even at the earliest stages of literacy acquisition; Dickinson and Tabors (1991) reported that preschoolers' engagement in oral extended discourse relates to their kindergarten and first-grade reading outcomes.

Extended discourses have a direct impact on literacy outcomes and also provide opportunities for exposure to more sophisticated vocabulary, which in turn predicts later vocabulary and reading scores (Weizman, 1995). In particular, the type of talk that the work of Snow et al. (1991) and Dickinson and Tabors (1991) suggested facili- tates literacy, requires the participants to be relatively ex- plicit, meaning focused, and able to sustain talk about topics beyond the here and now. The talk typically includes narratives and explanations, talk forms that extend over several turns. Such extended discourses are likely to occur during shared book reading if book topics are extended by discussion, during toy play if fantasy play

emerges, and during multiparty mealtime conversations (Beals & De Temple, 1993). Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding (1988) found that the time spent reading outside of school and the time spent at the dinner table were the best predictors of reading ability for fifth-grade students. In the intervention described here, parents are given specific training in engaging in talk that is lexically rich, includes extended discourses, and is somewhat distanced from the here and now.

The third set of compelling research findings points to the role of storybook reading in promoting children's literacy development. There has been some controversy as to whether storybook reading has an impact as a function of its frequency or its quality (Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994); accordingly, this intervention addresses both areas. The frequency of parental book reading was increased and, at the same time, the quality of talk engaged in during the interaction was enhanced by the parent training provided. Some prior parent-training studies limited them- selves to ensuring that more print-focused parent-child activities took place (Senechal, Lefevre, Thomas, & Daley, 1998) or involved parents more indirectly by making materials available to increase frequency of storybook reading (McCormick & Mason, 1986a; 1986b), while others sought to enhance the frequency of interaction between the teacher and children during storybook reading (Feitelson & Goldstein, 1986) without involving parents. Whitehurst et al. (1988) designed an intervention that modeled an optimal, dialogic type of interaction around storybooks but did not affect the frequency of interactions.

Project EASE models effective language interactions through systematic parent coaching and then increases the frequency of these higher quality interactions through structured parent-child activities. In order to evaluate Project EASE, we explore whether participation in the intervention results in language and literacy gains, controlling for home literacy support. Additionally, we evaluate how programmatic aspects of the intervention related to language and literacy outcomes.

Method

Participants Two hundred forty-eight kindergarten students and

their families from four schools in the White Bear Lake School District in Minnesota, USA, participated in the study. One hundred seventy-seven students in eight classes received the intervention, and 71 in three classes constituted the control group. White Bear Lake is a sub- urban district with nine elementary schools serving a K-5 population of 4,271 students with a median family income of US$41,731. The per-pupil expenditure in the dis-

Project EASE: The effect of a family literacy project 527



Table 1 Descriptive statistics of school-level variables for the four schools involved in the intervention

East Lake North Lake South Lake West Lake District (K-5)

Number of students enrolled 431 431 338 552 4271

Percentage of fourth graders 26.2 22.4 14.5 20.9 16.9 scoring below 25th percentile on ITBS

Percentage of families in poverty 20.0 18.7 21.0 18.1 15.0

Percentage of ESL students 1.0 3.0 0 1.0 1.0

Percentage of special 6.0 .05 .06 2.0 1.0 education students

Percentage/ 12 16 15 14 6 number of children in study E=53 C=21 C=50 E=75 C=71

E=50 E=177

Pseudonyms are used, and percentages are for the school or district site as a whole.

trict is US$5,783 per year. The typical population in these schools is characterized as being European American and

English speaking. Minority representation accounts for less than 5% of the population, and English as a Second Language (ESL) students represent 1% of the population. Students in this study enrolled in ESL programs all identified as Hmong. Ten percent of children in the district are identified as needing special education services. However, students are not tested for placement in services until after first grade. In a few cases, children enter school having been identified in early childhood with

special needs. Five children in this study were so designated, but the number was not large enough to test for

impact of this intervention on the subgroup separately. See Table 1 for school-level descriptive statistics.

Project EASE was conducted in four of the nine ele-

mentary schools. These schools were chosen for participation in the study because they were designated as the Title I schools in the district. Schools are targeted for Title I assistance because their populations contain a higher incidence of poverty than the other schools in the district. Poverty rates for these schools range from 18 to 21% of the population; the district poverty average is 15%.

State and federal guidelines for Title I programs include (a) ready-to-learn initiatives, (b) parent education

components, (c) effect on achievement in all four quar- tiles on standardized tests, and (d) opportunities for sustained staff development. The Project EASE intervention embodied all four principles. Including all families in the intervention prior to formal literacy instruction ensured that the program would be proactive. That is, parents would be given the skills and opportunities to help chil-

dren prior to the emergence of any difficulties in the beginning stages of literacy.

School demographics collected for state and federal agencies provided indices of socioeconomic status (SES). Collecting income information on an individual basis would have violated the right to privacy guidelines implemented by the district, and therefore was not done as part of this intervention.

The schools in White Bear Lake are characterized as being effective, with historically strong student achievement. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) is administered to all fourth-grade students in the district (see Table 1 for 1998 district results). Schools participating in the intervention had a sizable proportion scoring in the lowest quar- tile in total reading scores on standardized tests (which include vocabulary and reading comprehension subtests). These children remain at risk academically. No standardized test scores are available for younger students in the district. Thus we use the fourth-grade scores as an indica- tor of the general achievement level of the children in these elementary schools.

The kindergarten classes were comparable in size across the four schools, averaging 25 students per session. Each class met for half-day, daily sessions with a consistent district-selected curriculum. All of the six teachers participating in the study were experienced, tenured teachers (with an average of 18 years of teaching experience), and all had been provided with similar staff development opportunities for implementation of the district kindergarten curriculum. The content of the curriculum was strictly adhered to in all four schools.

Thus the families that participated in this intervention and in the control group were not at severe social or

528 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY October/November/December 2000 35/4



demographic risk, and the schools the children were attending were generally successful by national standards. However, there was still a need to improve reading proficiency skills for this population. Newly implemented state graduation standards require a high level of proficiency in literacy. Students on track for graduation must score 75% or higher in accuracy on state reading assessments by the middle school grades. The state assessments tap high-level reading comprehension abilities with authentic, complex, expository text passages and require students not only to process text at a global level but also to extend their thinking to infer the author's motives and bias, make predictions, and assess literary techniques. Because all students now entering school will be subjected to these high-stakes tests, it was considered important to design an intervention that would build support systems within families to help them strengthen their children's literacy skills from the onset of instruction.

Intervention procedure The intervention began in September with a series

of orientation sessions for parents whose children were in the intervention classrooms. Each family received an explanatory letter from the district administration outlin- ing the program and met with the intervention teachers individually to learn about the scope and intention of the program (only three parents refused to participate). Parents were invited to an evening meeting where the program was further explained and the proposed process of parental involvement outlined. At that meeting an overview of the year's program and an explanation of the research principles involved were given. Concurrently, control families were informed that the project was being carried out, and all agreed to allow their children to be tested as part of a comparison group.

The parent training sessions were organized in five 1-month units; in each unit a parent coaching session was led by a trained parent educator, working from a scripted discussion outline to assure fidelity across schools. All relevant information was also included in a take-home guide so that the concepts addressed in the sessions could be reviewed at will. Each parent education session was followed immediately by opportunities to engage in structured parent-child activities designed to provide practice in the desired interaction. Each of the subsequent 3 weeks, the teachers sent home a set of scripted activities incorporating the principles that were the focus for that month. These structured activities included scripted interactions and demonstrations of how to engage children in extended discussions surrounding a book. Each book to be used in the at-home activities was specifically selected because its content and text design offered lexical richness, extended discourse opportuni-

ties, and interesting ideas to talk about. Thus, the scripted parent-child interactions fostered the types of high-quality language interactions that research has shown to be effective in promoting language development. The sequence, including a parent education session during which literacy activities were modeled and opportunities to practice those activities with the child were given and then scripted activities that were sent home from school every week, was repeated for each of the five intervention units. (See Appendices A through E for outlines of the five units.)

Parent training sessions were held during the day while kindergarten classes were in session, which gave parents the opportunity to spend time in their child's classroom should they so choose. For parents unable to attend the daytime sessions, evening sessions were offered. Attendance records were kept for each session, and evaluation sheets were completed by parents for each activity sent home. These evaluations were used as a source of data about parent participation.

One of the monthly themes, Words... Words... Words..., focused on guiding parents in ways to support and enrich their children's vocabulary. In the initial parent session information about the role vocabulary would play in later reading development was provided, and ways to enrich and extend child vocabularies were suggested. Parents were encouraged to engage children in extended conversations at mealtimes, to support vocabulary growth by wide reading, and to discuss experiences not shared by all family members. Parents were given examples of activities that foster language and were shown the materials that would be coming home throughout that month. Parents were encouraged to help their children label, define, describe, and relate words and their attributes. Parents then were engaged with their children in modeled activities that incorporated the ideas covered in the parent education session (e.g., creating word webs together on selected topics, having children recall words in response to clues given by parents, having children describe mystery objects pictured on cards for the parent to guess, and reading books that labeled and described items). These activities were highly engaging for both parent and child and provided the families with a variety of specific ways to engage in vocabulary-enriching interaction. The weekly scripted at-home follow-up activities that further support these principles promoted discussion and categorization, defined and described informational items centered on a single topic, and forged connections between related words by identifying defining and non- defining attributes. All activities were designed to foster receptive and expressive language abilities and provided opportunities for the occurrence of rare vocabulary items.




The other four monthly themes, each of which was

presented and developed in a similar way, covered telling personal event narratives, discussing storybook narratives, discussing information-rich books, and learn-

ing about letters and sounds. (Complete information on the materials and the activities included in the intervention is available from http://gseweb.harvard.edu/-pild/ projectease.htm.)

Measures Parent survey. A survey pertaining to parent prac-

tices of home support for literacy was given to families to

complete prior to the beginning of the program (see Appendix F). No demographic questions were included in this survey, in accordance with the district policy. These self-report questionnaires were completed by families preceding any informational meetings that were held and any public description of the program intentions. No

attempt was made to collect missing surveys after the initial public meetings to avoid any bias in the responses. However, survey responses may reflect social desirability, leading to inflated estimates of home support that we are unable to control for in these analyses. Because there was a broad range of responses to these questions, de-

spite the likelihood of inflated responses in all cases, and because of the indications of impoverished literacy environments in some homes, we feel that the information gained is useful in being able to discern the effect of variation in home support on children in the study.

Child outcomes. In order to determine the effective- ness of Project EASE, children's language and emergent literacy skills were individually assessed in 2 two-part testing sessions. Pretests were given in September prior to the parent orientation sessions and before the beginning of the intervention. Posttests were given in May after the completion of all activities. The tests used tapped a wide variety of language and emergent literacy measures as described below.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. (PPVT-R) (1981). Measures of verbal receptive vocabulary were de- termined by administering an assessment requiring the

subjects to select the best visual representation of a spoken target word.

Comprehensive Assessment Program (CAP). Subtests were selected from the CAP (American College Testing, in press) including vocabulary (in particular, providing superordinates), story comprehension, sequencing in story production, letter recognition for upper- and lowercase letters, sound awareness for both beginning and ending of words (onset and rime), concepts of print, environmental print both in and out of context, and forming words by invented spelling. It should be noted that there

was a ceiling effect on some of these measures, in particular those related to print skills.

Measures analyzed Language, print, and sound composites. The indi-

vidual tests that make up the CAP are better understood as reflecting three separate dimensions, or domains, of literacy that we investigate in this study: Language, Sound, and Print. Therefore, as suggested by the literature, we developed three composite variables from the measures that compose the CAP. Principal Components Analysis was used to test existence of the three predicted group- ings: language, print, and sound. The Language composite consisted of vocabulary, story comprehension, and sequencing in story production, which accounted for 62% of the variation. The Print composite consisted of six measures: uppercase letter recognition; lowercase letter recognition; concepts of print: books; concepts of print: reading; environmental print in context; and environmental print out of context. Together these accounted for 49% of the variation. The Sound composite included three measures: sound awareness: beginning, sound awareness: ending, and forming words, which accounted for 60% of the variation. There were few instances of children scoring at ceiling for the composite measures.

Control variables. We wanted to distinguish the influence of the intervention from the supportive environment children already experienced in their homes. Information collected from parents about home literacy practices and children's engagement in literacy generated two composites.

Home literacy environment. A composite similar to the Home Support variable developed by Dickinson and De Temple (1998) was created based on parents' responses when asked whether the following materials were available in the home: adult books, children's books, magazines, newspapers, writing materials, tape recorder, computer, and school supplies. Each response was coded as yes (1) or no (0) and then summed.

Home literacy activities. A second composite, Literacy Activities (also suggested by the work of Dickinson & De Temple, 1998), was created from questions regarding (a) children's viewing of educational tele- vision (whether children watched Sesame Street or Reading Rainbow, coded as 1 or 0 for each program); (b) how often parents read to children (coded from open- ended responses into the following categories): never =

0, once a week = 1, a few times a week = 2, every day/night = 3; and (c) how often they went to the library: never = 0, occasionally = 1, monthly = 2, biweekly = 4. A sum score reflecting the child's involvement in literacy activities was calculated.

Participation variables. In addition to simple group designation, control or experimental, information was




Table 2 Project EASE: Mean assessment and emergent literacy task pre- and posttest scores, by control (n = 71) and experimental groups (n = 77)

Mean pretest scores (sd) Mean posttest scores (sd) Control Experimental Control Experimental (n = 71) (n = 177) (n = 71) (n = 177)

PPVT Standardc 99.94 (13.09) 98.88 (16.75) 107.85 (12.05) 107.68 (13.40)

Language composite

Language vocabulary 15.63 (2.79) 14.52 (4.22) 16.17 (3.24) 17.62 (2.46)

Story comprehensionb 8.76 (2.21) 8.56 (2.56) 9.83 (2.04) 10.50 (1.68)

Story sequence 7.11 (2.68) 6.94 (2.86) 7.80 (2.67) 9.15 (3.11)

Sound composite Sound awareness: beginning 1.92 (1.51) 2.41 (1.40) 3.75 (1.14) 4.13 (1.14) Sound awarness: ending 3.38 (1.59) 3.34 (1.38) 3.76 (1.29) 4.26 (.93)

Forming words 2.11 (2.71) 2.30 (3.01) 7.41 (3.44) 8.07 (3.05)

Print composite Letter recognition: Uppercase 15.48 (6.95) 15.30 (6.56) 20.58 (1.40) 20.53 (1.82) Letter recognition: Lowercase 11.18 (6.80) 11.67 (6.72) 19.54 (2.91) 19.42 (3.11) Environmental print: 7.92 (1.63) 7.66 (1.71) 9.49 (1.66) 9.39 (1.62) In context

Environment print: 2.63 (3.30) 2.64 (3.08) 6.63 (4.03) 6.46 (3.69) Out of context

Concept of print: 6.27 (1.56) 6.63 (1.64) 7.66 (.91) 7.64 (.81) Book skillsc

Concept of print: 5.64 (3.97) 5.24 (4.27) 7.99 (5.24) 9.60 (4.83) Readingc

There were several instances of missing data as indicated by the adjusted n's below: "Pretest Control: n = 70, Posttest Experimental: n = 159 hPretest Control: n = 176 :Pretest Experimental: n = 70

also collected on more detailed aspects of participation in the intervention in order to gain a better understanding of the influence of various components. Data on participation were collected from attendance records at the education sessions and parent feedback forms filled in after the weekly scripted at-home book activities.

Parental attendance records. Attendance was taken at each of the five sessions. Across all schools 85% of families participated in the at-school activities.

Scripted at-home book activities. Throughout the course of the intervention, parents and children in the ex-

perimental group were provided with 15 different scripted at-home reading activities, of which on average 80% were completed. An evaluation sheet was filled out by the parent and sent back to school with each activity. The evaluation was used both as a record keeping device and as a way of eliciting feedback. (See Appendices for detailed examples of these activities.) Though parents could report that an activity was completed when in fact it had not been carried out, the evaluation included specific questions that would have made compliance necessary for completion of the form. The parents' responses

to evaluative questions were overwhelmingly supportive of the activities.

Results First we describe children's performance on the pre-

and posttests and results from repeated measures analysis of variation (ANOVA) tests for the literacy tests individually and then for the three composites. The influence of the home support variables, Home Literacy Environment and Activities, is also examined. Finally, we use regression analysis to examine the extent to which Attendance and Scripted At-Home Book Activities are related to outcomes for the experimental group.

Individual language and literacy measures Means on the language and literacy measures were

examined to determine comparability between the experimental and control groups at pretest and posttest (Table 2). Because the same measures were used at pre- and posttest and were therefore not independent from one another, we used a repeated measures ANOVA procedure to determine the effect of the intervention. The two




groups were closely matched on the PPVT and the 12 different CAP measures of language skills, sound awareness, and print skills. There were only two instances of statistically significant differences as a function of group affiliation at pretest: the control group started out higher on the Story Sequence measure and the experimental group started out higher on the Sound Awareness: Beginning measure (see Table 2 for means and Table 3 for F test results). All children experienced statistically significant im- provements over time on the PPVT and the 12 CAP measures, as would be expected after a year of kindergarten instruction. However, when examining the effect of the interaction of group affiliation with time using repeated measures ANOVA we found that Project EASE

participants made statistically significantly greater gains than the control group on the following CAP tests: Vocabulary, Story Comprehension, Story Sequence, Sound Awareness: Ending, and Concept of Print: Reading (Table 3).

Language and literacy composite measures We then performed a repeated measures ANOVA

on the three composites: Language, Sound, and Print. Not surprisingly, given the pattern of results on the separate literacy tests, only the Language composite showed a statistically significant effect of the interaction of group affiliation and time (see Table 4 for group means and Table 5 for ANOVA results). Although all the children in the sample showed statistically significant gains in all three literacy composites over time, we were able to attribute a statistically significant gain in Language skills to the

Project EASE intervention. Effect sizes for the composite score improvement from pretest to posttest as a function of the intervention are included in Table 5. Project EASE had a moderate effect on the gains in the Language com-

posite (.64), and a small effect on Sound (.32) and Print (.07). As an additional check we used Tukey's multiple comparison test to determine if classroom assignment to

any of the six teachers had undue influence on the residual gain scores for the three composites. We found no distinction beyond that of the experimental and control group assignment.

Regression models Once we established that children in the Project

EASE experimental group had statistically significant gains in language skills we went on to evaluate (a) the differential effect of the intervention for children with different literacy skills at the start of the study, controlling for the influence of home support; and (b) which specific aspects of the intervention were related to language outcomes. To do this we examined descriptive and correlational statistics and then fit hierarchical regression models to predict

the residual gains between pre- and posttest language scores.

Means for Home Literacy Activities and Home Literacy Environment are presented in Table 6. Across the control and experimental groups, most families practiced a variety of literacy activities with their children. On average, parents reported reading to their children at least once a week and going to the library occasionally; over 70% of children watched Sesame Street and about half watched Reading Rainbow. Scores on the Home Literacy Activities composite ranged from a low of 1 (two cases where the only activity was reading to the child once a week) to a high of 9 (five families who engaged in all four activities on a regular basis). The difference between the average Home Literacy Activities score for the control group (5.42) and the experimental group (5.03) was not statistically significant.

The distribution for Home Literacy Environment was negatively skewed, as most families reported having a large variety of literacy materials in the home (books, magazines, newspapers, writing materials, school supplies, and a tape recorder), though only slightly more than half reported having a computer. Scores ranged from a high of 8 (about a quarter of the families had every type of literacy material) to a low of 2 (several families reported having no books or other reading materials in the house and only writing and school supplies). The difference between the average Home Literacy Environment score for the control group (7.02) and the experimental group (6.77) was not statistically significant. Because of its skewed distribution, this variable was transformed into Log 2 for correlation and regression analyses.

Participation variables for the experimental group are presented in Table 6. Over 60% of the families who participated in Project EASE attended all five sessions; the average number of sessions attended was 3.9. There were several families who agreed to participate and who completed the parental survey, but failed to attend any of the sessions. Similarly, 60% of the families in the experimental group completed the maximum number of scripted at- home book activities (15). On average, families completed 12 of these structured reading activities (80%) with their children over the course of the program. Only a handful of families failed to complete any at-home book activities.

Correlations presented in Table 7 show that the three composite outcomes-Language, Sound, and Print posttest scores-had moderate to strong relationships with each other (ranging from .37 to .72). Children whose Language scores increased tended to make gains in Sound and Print as well. Scores for the Language, Sound, and Print composites at pretest also had moderate to

532 RFADING RESEARCH QUARTERLY October/November/December 2000 35/4



Table 3 Analysis of variance results for literacy tests by group and time variables

Source df SS MS F

PPVT between subjects Group 1 13.76 13.76 0.04 Error 1 228 67037.43 374.51

PPVT within subjects Time 1 6914.99 6914.99 105.45*** Group x Time 1 46.57 46.57 0.71 Error 2 228 14951.36 65.58

Language Vocabulary between subjects Group 1 3.13 3.13 0.19 Error 1 247 4140.67 16.76

Language Vocabulary within subjects Time 1 329.41 329.41 60.36*** Group x Time 1 175.07 175.07 32.08*** Error 2 247 1348.08 5.46

Story Comprehension between subjects Group 1 4.71 4.71 0.72 Error 1 246 1607.90 6.53

Story Comprehension within subjects Time 1 234.02 234.02 84.85*** Group x Time 1 18.89 18.89 6.85** Error 2 194 573.37 2.96

Story Sequence between subjects Group 1 34.42 34.42 4.80* Error 1 247 1172.60 7.18

Story Sequence within subjects Time 1 222.82 222.82 51.20*** Group x Time 1 55.95 55.95 12.86** Error 2 247 1074.91 4.35

Sound Awareness: Beginning between subjects Group 1 19.62 19.62 8.52** Error 1 247 568.97 2.30

Sound Awareness: Beginning within subjects Time 1 322.66 322.66 312.61*** Group x Time 1 0.34 0.34 0.56 Error 2 247 254.94 1.03

Sound Awareness: Ending between subjects Group 1 4.48 4.48 2.08 Error 1 247 532.59 2.16

Sound Awareness: Ending within subjects Time 1 42.98 42.98 41.98*** Group x Time 1 7.63 7.63 7.45** Error 2 247 252.88 1.02

Forming Words between subjects Group 1 18.88 18.88 1.42 Error 1 247 3289.69 13.32

Forming Words within subjects Time 1 3165.06 3165.06 604.79*** Group x Time 1 4.66 4.66 0.89 Error 2 247 1292.64 5.23

Letter Recognition: Uppercase between subjects Group 1 2.43 2.43 0.09 Error 1 247 7008.76 28.38

Letter Recognition: Uppercase within subjects Time 1 2693.53 2693.53 141.80*** Group x Time 1 1.06 1.06 0.06 Error 2 247 4691.72 18.99 (continued)




Table 3 Analysis of variance results for literacy tests by group and time variables (continued)

Source df SS MS F

Letter Recognition: Lowercase between subjects Group 1 1.25 1.25 0.03 Error 1 247 9109.62 36.88

Letter Recognition: Lowercase within subjects Time 1 6540.92 6540.92 359.82*** Group x Time 1 6.01 6.01 0.57 Error 2 247 4490.02 18.18

Environmental Print: In Context between subjects Group 1 4.37 4.37 1.14 Error 1 247 944.76 3.82

Environmental Print: In Context within subjects Time 1 284.06 284.06 167.88*** Group x Time 1 0.48 0.48 0.28 Error 2 247 417.92 1.69

Environmental Print: Out of Context between subjects Group 1 3.11 3.11 0.16 Error 1 247 4887.57 19.79

Environmental Print: Out of Context within subjects Time 1 1553.50 1553.50 330.20*** Group x Time 1 0.60 0.60 0.13 Error 2 247 1162.08 4.70

Concept of Print: Book Skills between subjects Group 1 2.96 2.96 1.53 Error 1 246 474.82 1.93

Concept of Print: Book Skills within subjects Time 1 147.32 147.32 107.55*** Group x Time 1 3.61 3.61 2.63 Error 2 246 336.95 1.37

Concept of Print: Reading between subjects Group 1 24.89 24.89 0.81 Error 1 246 7524.77 30.59

Concept of Print: Reading within subjects Time 1 1180.67 1180.67 105.30*** Group x Time 1 91.16 91.16 8.13** Error 2 2.46 2758.26 11.21

*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

strong relationships to each other (ranging from .41 to .68), and prettest scores were strongly related to posttest scores (ranging from .53 to .79), indicating individual children's consistency across literacy skills. We would ex- pect these composites to have fairly high intercorrelations because they represent separate dimensions of a multi- variate literacy construct. We analyzed the effect of the predictors on the outcomes separately because combin- ing them as one single outcome would obscure their unique contribution to the measurement of language and literacy skills. As discussed below, we also tested the use of these other dependent variables as potential covariates in our regression models.

Home Literacy Activities as measured by the parent survey at the start of the program had a weak but statisti-

cally significant relationship to scores for Language, Sound, and Print at pretest (Table 7). In relation to gains, Home Literacy Activities was associated with Sound and Print posttest scores but not with Language posttest scores. Similarly, scores on Home Literacy Environment (Log 2 transformation) had a weak to moderate relationship with Language, Sound, and Print scores at pretest and at posttest. The two control variables, Home Literacy Activities and Literacy Environment, were positively correlated with each other, indicating that families who reported engaging in more activities tended also to report having more materials in the home.

To assess the impact of Project EASE on Language scores controlling for other factors, we first tested for any effect of age or gender using simple regression and




Table 4 Project EASE: Composite pre- and posttest scores, by control (n = 71) and experimental groups (n = 177)

Mean pretest scores (SD) Mean posttest scores (SD) Control Experimental Control Experimental (n = 71) (n = 177) (n = 71) (n = 177)

Language composite 31.53 (6.18) 30.02 (7.65) 33.83 (6.42) 37.27 (4.30)

Sound composite 7.40 (4.44) 8.05 (4.65) 14.96 (5.09) 16.46 (4.33)

Print composite 49.70 (18.43) 49.13 (18.17) 72.21 (12.84) 73.05 (11.81)

Table 5 Analysis of variance results for composites by group and time variables, and effect sizes

Source df SS MS F d

Language Composite between subjects Group 1 95.59 95.59 1.59 Error 1 246 14779.62 60.08

Language Composite within subjects Time 1 2332.79 2332.79 132.44* Group x Time 1 624.59 624.59 35.46* .64 Error 2 246 4333.14 17.61

Sound Composite between subjects Group 1 118.62 118.62 3.69- Error 1 246 7931.41 32.11

Sound Composite within subjects Time 1 6524.94 6524.94 665.61* Group x Time 1 18.79 18.79 1.92 .32 Error 2 246 2421.34 9.80

Print Composite between subjects Group 1 1.71 1.71 0.00 Error 1 246 102040.53 414.80

Print Composite within subjects Time 1 54601.32 54601.32 843.83* Group x Time 1 50.24 50.24 0.78 .07 Error 2 246 15917.74 64.71

*p< .001

found none. We should note that a very small percentage of children in the study were enrolled in English as a Second Language (ESL) programs or received Title 1 benefits. However, we found no statistically significant association between ESL or Title 1 status and Language posttest scores.

We then began an ordinary-least-squares regression analysis by first regressing language scores at pretest (LANGUAGE1) on language scores at posttest (LAN- GUAGE2), in order to control for children's ability level at the start of the intervention. We then added our control variables, Home Literacy Activities and Home Literacy Environment (transformed into Log 2 to conform to as- sumptions of normality). Although including the control variables, Home Literacy Activities and Home Literacy

Environment, reduced the number of subjects available for regression analysis (from 248 to 194; the loss, which was evenly distributed across the experimental and control groups, was due to missing data from the parental surveys), we felt it was important to include them in order to distinguish the effects of the intervention from literacy resources already in the home. Home Literacy Activities was not a statistically significant predictor of the posttest language composite, and, therefore, only Home Literacy Environment was included in further analyses.

Because of the high intercorrelations among the three composites, we also added Sound pretest and Print pretest to the model to test whether these variables explained some of the language gains. Neither variable had a statistically significant relationship to Language posttest




Table 6 Descriptive statistics: control variables and participation variables

Experimental Control M SD n M SD n

Control variables Home Literacy Environment 6.81 1.61 164 7.66 1.29 47

Home Literacy Activities 5.04 1.85 154 5.54 1.91 45

Participation variables

Attendance 3.86 1.69 193

Scripted At-Home Book Activities 12.44 4.17 193

Table 7 Pearson correlations for Language, Sound, and Print composite outcomes, and control and predictor variables (Nranges from 193 to 248)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Outcomes 1. Language posttest 1.0 2. Sound posttest .45*** 1.0 3. Print posttest .37*** .72*** 1.0

Control variables 4. Language pretest .53*** .48*** .49*** 1.0 5. Sound pretest .29*** .54*** .61*** .41*** 1.0 6. Print pretest .32*** .58*** .79*** .49*** .68*** 1.0 7. Home Literacy Activities .14 .25*** .30*** .23** .22** .27*** 1.0 8. Home Literacy Environment (Log 2) .31*** .36*** .21** .37*** .18** .24*** .19* 1.0

Predictor variables 9. Attendance (Log 2) .17* .26*** .25** .17* .14 .21** .17* .27*** 1.0 10. Scripted At-Home Book Activities (Log 2) .39*** .38*** .25** .29*** .18* .35***. 26** .36*** .64*** 1.0

*p <.05 **p < .01 ***p<.001

scores controlling for Language pretest. Adding the group variable (intervention vs. control) to the model showed a positive effect of Project EASE participation.

Finally, two interaction terms were tested, revealing that while the children with lower language scores at pretest showed greater gains at posttest, these gains increased at a steeper rate for the experimental group, and for children with reports of a richer Home Literacy Environment (see Table 8 for fitted regression models). We examined studentized residuals to determine that as- sumptions of normality were not violated. Controlling for Language scores at pretest, Home Literacy Environment, their interactions, and the interaction between pretest Language scores and group affiliation, we would predict a 22-point difference on Language gains at posttest for Project EASE participants compared to the control group. In actual numbers, by the end of the intervention, Project EASE participants who started out low in language skills (as assessed by the Language composite of the CAP)

were doing as well as their control group peers who had started out high in language skills.

Finally, we examined the effect of participation variables for the Project EASE experimental group. Parental attendance at parent education sessions (Log 2 transformation) was weakly correlated with Language and Print scores at pretest, while the number of Scripted At-Home Book Activities (Log 2 transformation) completed was positively related to Language, Sound, and Print at pretest (Table 7). Parents whose children scored higher at pretest across the home support measures tended to participate more fully. Both Attendance and Scripted At-Home Book Activities were positively related to Home Literacy Activities (r = .17 and .27, respectively) and Home Literacy Environment (r = .27 and .36, respectively). Children whose parents participated more fully in the program also tended to have higher levels of Home Literacy Activities and Home Literacy Environment. Parents with higher Attendance levels also tended to




complete more Scripted At-Home Book Activities (r = .64, p .0001). Attendance had a weak but statistically significant relationship to posttest outcome measures. For the

Scripted At-Home Book Activities variable, there was a weak to moderate association with outcome measures.

Using regression analysis, we tested whether participants in Project EASE who attended more parent education sessions or completed more Scripted At-Home Book Activities did better than less involved participants. We found that Attendance was a statistically significant predictor in a simple regression model (Table 9) but was no

longer statistically significant when other predictors were added to the model. In contrast, we did find a positive effect of Scripted At-Home Book Activities (Table 8), con-

trolling for Language pretest scores, Home Literacy Environment (Log 2), and the interaction between

Language pretest and Home Literacy Environment (Log 2). Controlling for other predictors in the model, every book activity completed by Project EASE participants was associated with about a 5-point increase in predicted

Language gains (calculated by anti-logging the Log 2 transformation of the Scripted At-Home Book Activities coefficient).

Discussion

Major findings The impact of participation in Project EASE on chil-

dren's language scores is striking. First, language was the

primary focus of EASE activities, so it is gratifying that

language skills show the largest effect; second, amount of

participation as indexed by completing book-related activities at home relates to size of the effect observed; third, receiving this intervention had a particularly powerful impact on the children who scored low at the pretest. Presumably children who scored high at the pretest were

already engaged in activities of the sort promoted by the intervention with their parents and thus were less likely to display a sharp improvement as a result of the program. It appeared from the posttest measures on the CAP

Table 8 Fitted regression models for Language posttest as a function of Language score at pretest, Home Literacy Environment, Project EASE participation, and the interactions between Language at pretest and Project EASE

participation, and Language at pretest and Home Literacy Environment (N = 195)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

(s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) Standard f9

Intercept 25.57*** 25.10*** 34.11* 17.51*** 3.51 -24.52*** (1.28) (2.53) (0.71) (2.18) (3.45) (7.25)

0.0

Language pretest 0.36*** 0.35*** 0.77* 1.82*** (.04) (.04) (.09) (.26)

2.73

(Log 2) Environment 4.21* 1.93* 2.17** 12.20*** (0.91) (.79) (.74) (2.42)

0.91

Project EASE 3.31*** 4.04*** 19.74*** 22.20*** (0.81) (.65) (3.17) (3.09)

1.88

Language pretest* -0.49*** -0.57*** Project EASE (.10) (0.10)

-1.66

Language pretest* -0.38*** (Log 2) Environment (0.09)

-1.91

R .29 .10 .08 .42 .49 .54

F 80.00 21.23 16.73 47.22 46.27 44.24 (dj) (1,194) (1,194) (1,194) (3,192) (4,191) (5,190)

p-value .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001

*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001




Table 9 Fitted regression models for Language posttest as a function of Language score at pretest, Home Literacy Environment, the interaction between Language at pretest and Home Literacy Environment, and Scripted At-Home Book Activities (N = 149)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

(s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) Standard fg

Intercept 25.91*** 25.60*** 34.49*** 17.57*** -0.21 -0.87 (1.11) (2.19) (0.71) (2.18) (5.96) (5.78)

0.0

Language pretest 0.31*** 1.21*** 0.94*** (.04) (.23) (.24)

1.76

(Log 2) Environment 4.32*** 11.33** 8.27** (0.80) (2.32) (2.45)

0.78

Attendance 0.67* (0.27)

Scripted At-Home 5.18*** 2.42** Book Activities (0.81) (0.77)

0.22

Language pretest* -0.36*** -0.26** (Log 2) Environment (0.09) (0.09)

-1.65 R .35 .17 .04 .22 .45 .48

F 78.09 29.52 6.37 40.91 39.58 33.92 (df) (1,148) (1,148) (1, 148) (1,148) (3,146) (4,145)

p-value .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001

*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

vocabulary subtests that those students who participated in the intervention were better able to recall more super- ordinate terms; superordinates are key lexical items in formal definitions, which in turn have been shown to relate to the reading skills of elementary aged children (Snow, 1990; Snow et al., 1994). The failure of the intervention to show an effect on vocabulary as measured by the PPVT is not surprising; the PPVT was designed to test incidental vocabulary acquisition and not to reveal curriculum effects. In subsequent replications of evaluations of the EASE intervention, it would be valuable to consid- er including a vocabulary test that assessed knowledge of the specific vocabulary domains targeted in the parent- child activities.

The size of the intervention effect is particularly surprising given that the families involved in this study were not on average extremely limited in their literacy support, and that the children were attending schools with generally good achievement results. In other words, even in this moderate-to-low risk sample of English-speaking European American families, with median family incomes above the poverty level and access to good schools for

their children, there is room for parental involvement to improve children's school performance.

Feasibility and extendability of the intervention The generally high level of attendance at the parent

training sessions, and the positively skewed participation measures, indicate that parents enjoyed being invited to be involved in these ways in their children's school preparation. In fact, evaluation comments included by parents on their weekly feedback forms confirm this im- pression. Fewer than 1% of these comments were nega- tive. The lack of relationship between attendance and language and literacy outcomes may be explained by both a lack of variation in this predictor and by parents simply serving as an audience to the training rather than the more complex process of parents engaged in language development activities as measured by the At- Home Book Activities variable.

It should be noted, though, that the intervention re- quired considerable resources to provide the materials and the training and to coordinate the follow-up activities. Similarly, descriptions and evaluations of nonfamilial




tutoring programs emphasize the importance of training and ongoing supervision of tutors for optimal outcomes (e.g., Invernizzi, Rosemary, Juel, & Richards, 1997). Project EASE provided five training sessions, opportunities to practice the new interaction modes after seeing a model, and activity packets designed to scaffold the sorts of interactions parents had learned about, though no direct supervision was provided. Our results, then, confirm those from the evaluations of tutoring programs, that seri- ous investment in training is necessary in order to see the effects of intervention programs using nonprofessional adults. In light of the efforts in many school districts across the U.S. to recruit nonfamilial adults to serve as reading tutors in programs designed to support literacy achievement, it is striking that the most highly motivated tutors, the parents, have not typically been tapped.

Of course, the enthusiastic reception of this intervention in this relatively low-risk sample does not ensure its feasibility with different population groups. Replicating this sort of intervention with much higher risk families may present some unique challenges, including establish- ing and maintaining contact with hard-to-reach parents, preserving time for the intervention activities in families in more severe poverty, and communicating effectively about the activities to families with low parental literacy. Project EASE has, however, been successfully replicated in different demographic settings. A consortium of school districts in rural areas has implemented the program with the same high parent participation levels (85%). Early anecdotal evidence suggests increased student achievement in language scores and fewer instances of students requiring special education services. Modifications of Project EASE have also been piloted in urban centers with a high incidence of poverty, but those programs have recruited nonfamilial adults and classroom teachers in lieu of families. Data from these various projects have not been fully analyzed.

Limitations The study presented here is, of course, limited in a

number of ways. First, we have presented only immedi- ate outcome data, whereas, in fact, evidence that participation in Project EASE improves middle-grade reading outcomes would be desirable. The outcome measures used here do, in other studies, predict later reading outcomes relatively well (Snow et al., 1994), but nonetheless longer term follow-up is to be desired.

Second, in the absence of actual observations of the parents engaged in the activities with their children, it is difficult to determine precisely what the key aspects of those interactions were that generated gains. We have used a self-report measure, Scripted At-Home Book Activities, as a basis for estimating amount of participa-

tion, because the language activities parents were trained to engage in all involved specific books, and we felt parents could report number of books used better than amount of talk engaged in. We of course do not know to what extent simply increased exposure to well-written, informative children's books generated a part of the effect, and a future impact study might well provide the books without the training to the control group. However, considerable evidence suggests that the value of interactive book reading for children of this age range derives from a particular discussion style rather than simple exposure (e.g., Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Whitehurst et al., 1988).

Finally, this study did not address the issue of rela- tive costs and benefits. The child participants were attending generally good schools with skilled and experienced kindergarten teachers, but it is always possible that instruction in their kindergarten classrooms could have been improved. Focusing training efforts on teachers may be a more cost-effective way to achieve gains in literacy than involving parents. The opportunities for language en- richment remain somewhat limited, though, even in the best of whole-class settings. Furthermore, given the accu- mulating evidence that dyadic and small-group interactions involving adults provide children with unique opportunities to hear sophisticated vocabulary (Beals & Tabors, 1995; Weizman, 1995) and extended discourse (e.g., Aukrust & Snow, 1998; Beals, 1993), we feel that giving parents skills to engage in richer and more chal- lenging conversations may make a unique contribution to children's development, perhaps by permanently chang- ing the nature of familial conversational interactions in a wider variety of settings. Again, of course, only a longitu- dinal study that also included in-home observations could fully test these optimistic predictions.

Despite the limitations of this work, the study has robustly demonstrated that parents welcome invitations to participate in promoting their children's school success, that they are happy to receive training in how to do so most effectively, and that the parental efforts indeed result in children's improved language and language analysis skills. Particularly, those children who scored low on language measures at the beginning of kindergarten showed an impact of the intervention. Because vocabulary knowledge, story comprehension, and story sequencing are precisely the language skills that relate most strongly to literacy accomplishments (Snow et al., 1994), the improvement on these measures strongly confirms the relevance of the intervention to improved reading outcomes.

REFERENCES ADAMS, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.




AMERICAN COLLEGE TESTING. (in press). Comprehensive Assessment Program: Kindergarten Research Edition. Iowa City, IA: Author.

ANDERSON, R.C., WILSON, P.T., & FIELDING, L.C. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285-303.

AUKRUST, V.G., & SNOW, C.E. (1998). Narratives and explanations during mealtime conversations in Norway and the U.S. Language in Society, 27, 221-246.

BEALS, D.E. (1993). Explanatory talk in low-income families' mealtime conversations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 489-514.

BEALS, D.E., & DE TEMPLE, J.M. (1993). Home contributions to early language and literacy development. In D. Leu & C. Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice. Forty-second yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 207-215). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

BEALS, D.E., & TABORS, P.O. (1995). Arboretum, bureaucratic, and carbo- hydrates: Preschoolers' exposure to rare vocabulary at home. First Language, 15(1), 57-76.

BUS, A., VAN IJZENDOORN, M., & PELLEGRINI, A. (1995). Joint reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65, 1-21.

DICKINSON, D.K., & DE TEMPLE, J.M. (1998). Putting parents in the picture: Maternal reports of preschoolers' literacy as a predictor of early reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 241-261.

DICKINSON, D.K., & SMITH, M.W. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers' book readings on low-income children's vocabularies and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 104-122.

DICKINSON, D.K., & TABORS, P.O. ( 1991). Early literacy: Linkages between home, school and literacy achievement at age five. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 6(1), 30-46.

EDWARDS, P.A. (1995). Empowering low-income mothers and fathers to share books with young children. The Reading Teacher, 48, 558-564.

EDWARDS, P.A., PLEASANTS, H.M., & FRANKLIN, S.H. (1999). A path to follow: Learning to listen to parents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

FEITELSON, D., & GOLDSTEIN, Z. (1986). Patterns of book ownership and reading to young children in Israeli school-oriented and nonschool-oriented families. The Reading Teacher, 39, 924-930.

GOUGH, P.B., & TUNMER, W.E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.

HART, B., & RISLEY, T.R. (1999). The social world of children learning to talk. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

HEATH, S.B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

INVERNIZZI, M., ROSEMARY, C.A., JUEL, C., & RICHARDS, H.C. (1997). At-risk readers and community volunteers: A three year perspective. Journal of the Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 277-300.

MASON, J., & ALLEN, J. (1986). A review of emergent literacy with implica- tions for research and practice in reading. In E. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 3-48). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

MCCORMICK, C.E., & MASON, J.M. (1986a). Intervention procedures for increasing preschool children's interest in and knowledge about reading. In W.H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 90-115). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

MCCORMICK, C.E., & MASON, J.M. (1986b). Use of little books at home: A minimal intervention strategy that fosters early reading (Tech. Rep. No. 338). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 314 742.

PURCELL-GATES, V., & DAHL, K. (1991). Low-SES children's success and failure at early literacy learning in skills-based classrooms. Journal of Reading Behavior: A Journal of Literacy, 23, 1-34.

SCARBOROUGH , H.S., & DOBRICH, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14, 245-302.

SENECHAL, M., LEFEVRE, J.,THOMAS, E., & DALEY, K. (1998). Differential effects of home literacy experiences on the development of oral and written language. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 96-116.

SNOW, C.E. (1990). The development of definitional skill. Journal of Child Language, 17, 697-710.

SNOW, C.E., BARNES, W., CHANDLER, J., GOODMAN, I., & HEMPHILL, L. (1991). Unfulfilled expectations: Home and school influences in literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

SNOW, C.E., BURNS, M.S., & GRIFFIN, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

SNOW, C.E., TABORS, P.O., NICHOLSON, P., & KURLAND, B. (1994). SHELL: Oral language and early literacy skills in kindergarten and first grade children. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10, 37-48.

WEIZMAN, Z.O. (1995). Sophistication in maternal vocabulary input at home: Does it affect low-income children's vocabulary, literacy, and language success in school? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.

WELLS, G. (1983). Language and learning in the early years. Early Child Development & Care, 11(1), 69-77.

WELLS, G. (1985). Preschool literacy-related activities and success in school. In D.R. Olson, N. Torrence, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy language and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 229-255). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

WHITEHURST, G.J., FALCO, F.L., LONIGAN, C.J., FISCHEL, J.E., DE BARYSHE, B.D., VALDEZ- MENCHACA, M.C., & CAULFIELD, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24, 552-559.

Received September 2, 1999 Final revision received February 28, 2000

Accepted March 17, 2000




APPENDIX A Words... Words... Words...: A vocabulary unit

Parent education session Parents meet with a Project EASE teacher who gives them background information on the role parents play in developing the receptive and expressive abilities of their children. Concepts covered:

1. Parents are the first source of vocabulary development for their children, and they continue to be a critical source for verbal interactions.

2. Parents can influence and broaden their child's vocabulary by the kinds of interactions they have at home. 3. Activities that help broaden a child's vocabulary are

* book reading * extended conversations * discussions about events or concepts that go beyond the here and now.

4. Vocabulary will greatly impact their child's literacy development throughout the school years; in particular it will impact reading comprehension and written language performance.

At-school activities Parents directly observe their child in structured activities that demonstrate verbal fluency, lexical searching, word classification, prediction, labeling, and word associations. Parents engage in one-on-one activities with their child, such as: 1. Making pictorial word webs about a single topic (e.g., things to do outside, things about school, favorite things to do

on vacation). 2. Guessing the names of items from verbal clues. Children describe items to parents and have them guess, and

parents read riddles to children to have them name the items. 3. Reading books together that have an array of words centered on a single topic. 4. Reading books that require the child to guess items hidden under a flap. 5. Making associations between words as to how they are alike and different.

At-home activities Children bring home a structured book activity to do at home each week for 3 weeks. The activity includes a specific book that models the desired language interaction, a scripted set of directions that guides parents, a follow-up art activity, and an evaluation sheet. The selected books demonstrate how words are classified, are related to a specific topic, contain precise language, introduce rare words, explain a topic, define concepts, label items, and describe features and attributes.

Books used in unit Bunting, J. (1996). Myfirst action word book. New York: Dorling Kindersley. Colorfun. (1995). New York: Covent Garden Books. Let's count. (1995). New York: Covent Garden Books. Let's go shopping. (1995). New York: Covent Garden Books. Nature. (1997). New York: Covent Garden Books. Priddy, R. (1995). Baby's book of animals. New York: Dorling Kindersley. Priddy, R. (1995). Baby's book of nature. New York: Dorling Kindersley. Royston, A. (1991). Eye opener: Boats. New York: Simon & Schuster. Royston, A. (1991). Eye opener: Cars. New York: Simon & Schuster. Royston, A. (1991). Eye opener: Insects. New York: Simon & Schuster. Royston, A. (1991). Eye opener. Jungle animals. New York: Simon & Schuster. Royston, A. (1991). Eye opener: Trucks. New York: Simon & Schuster. Royston, A. (1991). Eye opener: Zoo animals. New York: Simon & Schuster. Sipett, D. (1996). The really amazing animal book. New York: Dorling Kindersley. Super senses. (1996). New York: Covent Garden Books.

(continued)




APPENDIX A Words... Words... Words... : A vocabulary unit (continued)

Treasure hunt. (1995). New York: Covent Garden Books. What's in the box? (1995). New York: Covent Garden Books. What's inside? (1995). New York: Covent Garden Books. What's inside series.. Animal homes. (1995). New York: Dorling Kindersley. What's inside series. Boats. (1995). New York: Dorling Kindersley. What's inside series: Insects. (1995). New York: Dorling Kindersley. What's inside series: Plants. (1995). New York: Dorling Kindersley. What's inside series: Trucks. (1995). New York: Dorling Kindersley.

Flashcards used Things in the garden. (1995). New York: Dorling Kindersley. Things in the house. (1995). New York: Dorling Kindersley. Things that go. (1995). New York: Dorling Kindersley. Wordplay. (1995). New York: Dorling Kindersley.

APPENDIX B Once Upon A Time: A storybook unit

Parent education session Parents meet with a Project EASE teacher who gives them background information on the role reading books play in literacy development of young children by building language skills, strengthening comprehension skills, and extending their thinking beyond the here and now. Concepts covered:

1. Children learn how stories are structured implicitly by listening to stories read to them.

2. Children are introduced to rare words, longer and more complex sentences, and distant concepts. 3. Children can extend their thinking by discussing the book as it is read. The best discussions extend their thinking

and go beyond the literal story events.

At-school activities Parents engage in a one-on-one activity with their child, such as:

1. Parents observe a story read to a group of students by the Project EASE teacher to see how a book can be used as a language opportunity and as a springboard for discussion.

2. Parents and children jointly make their own version of the gingerbread house, which was the setting of the story.

At-home activities Children bring home a structured book activity to do at home each week for 3 weeks. The activity includes a specific book that models the desired language interaction, a scripted set of directions that guides parents, a follow-up art activity, and an evaluation sheet. Each book has a specific story structure element that gives parents an opportunity to extend the story. The selected books have strong central characters, well-defined goals, interesting conflict between characters, and story problems that generate extended discussions between parent and child. Parents are asked to

engage their children in the story by asking inferences about the characters and events.

Books used in unit DePaola, T. (1989). The art lesson. New York: Sandcastle Books. Henkes, K. (1986). A weekend with Wendell. New York: Mulberry Books. Lesser, R. (1990). Hansel and Gretel. New York: Sandcastle Books. Wadell, M. (1988). Can't you sleep Little Bear? Cambridge, MA: Candlewick.




APPENDIX C Cracking the Code: A letter and sound unit

Parent education session Parents meet with the Project EASE teacher who gives them background on the task demands of decoding print and the role that letter recognition and sound awareness play in developing an awareness of how the print system operates in reading. Concepts covered :

1. Strong accurate decoding ability is necessary for competent readers so that the allocation of attention can be focused on the comprehension process.

2. Strong decoding abilities rely on accurate and automatic associations between print and sound.

3. Having a firm command of letters and their sound associations gives children a foundation to make sense of the print/sound system. Having the ability to think intentionally about the sound that a letter makes and the awareness that spoken words are made up of constituent sounds are critical markers in beginning-to-read stage.

4. Sound associations can be facilitated by the strong memory associations to speech motor acts. In other words, parents can use feedback as to how a sound feels when making the sounds to help children remember.

5. Early print experiences help children think about the letters and their sequences .

6. Accurate letter recognition can be facilitated by examining letters and their features.

7. Repeated meaningful experiences with print help children build up strong memory associations for the visual form of the letter.

At-school activities Parents engage in a variety of one-on-one activities with their children that maximize the learning opportunities with print and sound. Parents can select to do activities such as:

1. Making collages of selected letters. These collages help the child search through a visual array of items in magazines or advertisements that begin with the target letter. Children learn to look at the items and classify them by the sound of the onset, thus forcing them to think about sound associations and sound isolations.

2. Children listen to a reading of Chicka Chicka Boom Boom and review the book by matching the lowercase letters with the letters printed on the page. Visual features of the letters and letter orientation are developed.

3. Children listen to a reading of Alphabugs and make their own pop-up book generating words that share the beginning sound. This activity allows for lexically searching by children for words that share the same onset, allowing again for more intentional thought about sound associations.

4. Children play a game that requires them to sort through a collection of plastic manipulatives, give those items a label, and then place the items into boxes that have been labeled by the 26 letters of the alphabet. This activity has children isolate the beginning sound and forces an association of that sound with a printed symbol.

5. Children listen to a reading of the book Noodles and then play with the sounds contained in the words and names of the characters. This activity allows for sound manipulation in multisyllabic words and offers a more complex awareness of sound associations. The book is also told in a rhyming pattern that gives children more opportunity to play with sounds. The children do an art activity with the noodles referred to in the story.

At-home activities Children bring home a structured book activity to do at home each week for 3 weeks. The activity includes a specific book that models the desired print interaction, a scripted set of directions that guides parents, a follow-up art activity, and an evaluation sheet. Parents engage their children in review of letters in both upper- and lowercase forms, sound associations of letters, and follow-up art activities that extend the ideas contained in the book.

Books used in unit Bunting, J. (1993). Myfirst ABC. New York: Dorling Kindersley. Carter, D. (1994). Alphabugs. New York: Simon & Schuster.

(continued)




APPENDIX C Cracking the Code: A letter and sound unit (continued)

Ehlert, L. (1989). Eating the alphabet. Fruits and vegetables from A to Z. New York: Harcourt Brace. Kitamura, S. (1992). From acorn to zoo. New York: Sunburst. MacDonald S. (1986). Alphabatics. New York: Simon & Schuster. Martin, B., & Archambault, J. (1989). Chicka chicka boom boom. New York: Simon & Schuster. Martin, B., & Archambault, J. (1995). Chicka chicka sticka sticka: An ABC sticker book. New York: Simon & Schuster. Seeley, L. (1990). The book of shadow boxes. Atlanta, GA: Peachtree Publishers, Ltd. Sloat, T. (1989). From letter to letter. New York: Penguin. Weeks, S., & Carter, D. (1995). Noodles. New York: HarperCollins.

APPENDIX D A Time to Remember: A narrative retelling unit

Parent education session Parents meet with the Project EASE teacher who gives them background information on the role narrative retellings can play in developing oral and written language skills. Parents are given a spelling exercise to demonstrate the role that spelling by sound plays when there is not a stored orthographic representation of the word in memory. This spelling exercise gives parents a better perspective of the emerging print/sound system their child is developing. Concepts covered:

1. Children, who take on the role of a narrator of a story, whether in oral or written format, assume a more formal language stance.

2. Children who recall a past event learn how to recall major event, resequence significant actions, fill in critical details, and entertain the listener develop critical comprehension skills.

3. Children who retell events through print foster their print and sound skills in addition to developing their language skills.

4. Parents can learn about a child's developing print and sound system by observing the invented spelling used in the narrative retellings.

5. Children use art as a form of composition in retellings, which can serve as an important language planning function.

6. Past experiences having stored emotions (e.g., surprise, nervousness) make narrative retelling easier because those events are easier to recall and have a natural beginning, middle, and end.

7. Imagined stories created by the narrator may be incomplete in form but will show further development over time.

At-school activities Parents engage in one-on-one activities with their children that give them a chance to observe their child's development in narrative retellings, invented spelling, creative dramatics, and story sequencing.

1. Children act out the familiar stories Three Billy Goats Gruff and The Three Bears by using story props and taking roles of different characters.

2. Children design and write a card to a distant family member.

3. Children resequence a story, add dialog, and create a book about making a snowman.

4. Children retell significant milestones in their life by creating a timeline using art and print. 5. Children create books around a single topic.

At-home activities Children have a journal to complete at home, which gives them opportunities to retell past events and write imagined stories. Children use both art and print to retell their stories.




APPENDIX E Talking About the World: A nonfiction unit

Parent education session Parents meet with the Project EASE teacher who gives them background information on the different structure of exposition and the role that engagement in explanatory talk plays in developing language. Concepts covered:

1. Nonfiction text will be a predominant style of text used in the upper grades. 2. Early experiences in rich language interactions help facilitate the unique language competence used in understanding

exposition. 3. Parents can help their children develop their language competencies by engaging them in elaborated and explana

tory talk.

4. Exposition requires sustained attention around a single topic. Children can benefit from early language experiences through book reading and discussions that develop and describe scientific concepts.

5. Text centered on a single topic introduces rare and specific words that help develop their vocabulary. 6. Children can acquire a rich set of concepts about the world by active engagement in hands on activities that allow

them the opportunities to observe and explore. 7. Curiosity about the world around them encourages children to be lifelong learners.

At-school activities Parents engage in one-on-one hands-on activities with their child. The activities give families a chance to discuss topics and observe scientific concepts.

1. Children play at a magnet table that has a variety of magnet activities. 2. Children engage in wind and air experiments. 3. Children engage in experiments with music and sound. 4. Children engage in activities with water.

At-home activities Children bring home a book activity once a week for 3 weeks that contains a nonfiction text, scripted parent guide, a hands-on activity, and an evaluation sheet. Children engage in text that models extended and explanatory talk, has descriptions of scientific concepts, and contains domain specific vocabulary.

Books used in unit Branley, F. (1986). Air is all aroundyou. New York: HarperCollins. Branley, F. (1996). What makes a magnet? New York: HarperCollins. Jordan, H. (1992). How a seed grows. New York: HarperCollins. Ling, M. (1992). See how they grow: Butterfly. New York: Dorling Kindersley. Martin, T. (1996). Why does lightning strike? New York: Dorling Kindersley.




APPENDIX F Parent survey

Home literacy activities composite questions Does your child: (check all that apply)

watch Sesame Street

watch Reading Rainbow

Do you read to your child? yes _ no

How often?

Do you and your child go to the library? _ yes _ no

How often?

Home literacy environment composite questions What materials do you have at home? (check all that apply)

adult books, name one:

children's books, kind:

magazines

newspapers

_ writing materials

_ tape recorder

computer

_ school supplies




Documents

Project EASE: The Effect of a Family Literacy Project on Kindergarten Students' Early Literacy Skills