Shared Reading Correlates of Early Reading Skills
Stephen Burgess
Abstract
This article describes a study that examined the relations
between shared reading and the development of
phonological sensitivity and oral language skills in very
young children. Preschool measures of shared reading
were found to be correlated significantly with these
developmental outcomes, but the magnitude of these
relations varied by outcome and measure of shared
reading. Results are discussed in the context of calls for
improved home literacy environments for young children
and their implications for early intervention programs.
Introduction
Learning to read is a difficult process that involves a number of different skills and
experiences. It depends on learning to decode individual words as well as having the
necessary knowledge of concepts and the world to comprehend the meaning of the
text. According to Carroll, Davies, and Richman (1971) and Adams (1990), children
are expected to recognize and understand more than 80,000 words by the end of
third grade (at age 8 or 9). However, the process of learning to read starts before
school for many children. It is well documented that children enter school
differentially prepared to benefit from formal educational experiences and that these
differences often translate into subsequent differences in achievement in reading and
in other subject areas (e.g., Adams; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994; Wagner
et al., 1997).
When asked about the origins of these initial differences, parents, educators, and
researchers most commonly cite some aspect of the home literacy environment
(HLE) that parents provide for their preschool children. The presumption that
exposing children to a home environment rich in literacy activities is beneficial to
literacy and language development has come increasingly to influence contemporary
educational theory and practice. In the United States, for example, where educators
strive to meet the federal mandate that every child read well by the end of third
grade, there is a nationwide call for parents to read to their children along with
numerous government initiatives to increase children’s exposure to literacy activities
(e.g., the America Reads Challenge proposed by former President Clinton, provisions
of the Reading Excellence Act supported by Presidents Clinton and Bush).
However, despite the almost universal consensus that HLE, especially in the form of
shared reading activities, is important in the development of language and literacy
skills, evidence suggests that the association between HLE and educational and
developmental outcomes is small to modest in size. Scarborough and Dobrich (1994)
identified only 31 research samples that examined the relations of shared reading
during the preschool years to a variety of tasks designed to assess oral language,
literacy-related skills (e.g., letter knowledge), and literacy achievement measured
during preschool or later school years. A similar number of studies (29) was
identified by Bus, van Ijzendoorn, and Pelligrini (1995) in their review of the
effectiveness of shared reading in the preschool years. The authors of both reviews
concluded that individual differences in preschool exposure to shared reading
explained approximately 8 percent of the variance in the academic outcomes
studied, with a median correlation of .26 reported by Scarborough and Dobrich. This
is an area in need of additional research and clarification.
Early studies of the HLE’s influence tended to reduce its complexity to social status
measures (e.g., parental education, occupation, income). It was generally found that
children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) and non-mainstream cultural
communities performed less well on reading tests and demonstrated lower levels of
interest in literacy (e.g., Dickinson & Snow, 1987; Teale, 1986). However, social
status is a marker variable that represents a number of attitudes, activities, and
opportunities and does not identify the specific aspects of the home environment
that are important in different stages of literacy and language development. More
recently, researchers have sought to identify these specific aspects that relate to
literacy and language development. It has been found that certain aspects of the
HLE, especially shared reading activities, explain more adequately the relation
between home environment and educational and developmental outcomes than do
more global social class measures (e.g., Iverson & Walberg, 1982; Share, Jorm,
Maclean, & Matthews, 1984; Walberg & Tsai, 1985; White, 1982).
Lonigan (1994) and Scarborough and Dobrich (1994) suggested that future
researchers attempt to take into account that different aspects of HLE may exert
their influence on different outcomes and that the relative importance of HLE may
vary by outcome and developmental period. For example, shared reading may
influence oral language development, whereas letter knowledge may come from
more direct parental instruction. Senechal, LeFevre, Thomas, and Daley (1998,
online document) found that storybook exposure accounted for a statistically
significant amount of unique variance in kindergarten and Grade 1 children’s oral
language skills, but not in their written language skills. In contrast, a measure of
parental teaching (e.g., number of instances a parent taught a child to read words
and to print words in a typical week) explained statistically significant unique
variance in children’s written language skills, but not in their oral language skills.
Other researchers have also found that different aspects of HLE influence different
outcomes (e.g., Meyer, Stahl, Wardrop, & Linn, 1994; Whitehurst, Arnold, Epstein,
Angell, Smith, & Fischel, 1994).
In order to extend our understanding of the potential role of the preschool HLE in the
development of individual differences in language and literacy development, studies
are needed to test the relations of different aspects of the HLE with a variety of ageappropriate developmental outcomes (Dunning, Mason, & Stewart, 1994; Ehri &
Sweet, 1991; Hess, Hollaway, Dickson, & Price, 1984; Hiebert, 1980; Lonigan, 1994;
Whiteurst & Lonigan, 1998). These studies should directly address how particular
features of family experience map onto children’s developing components of
language and literacy at various stages.
The present study examined the relations of shared reading to oral language,
represented by receptive and expressive vocabulary and phonological sensitivity.
These outcomes were selected because of their importance in the development of
literacy-related skills during the preschool years; later, more complex literacy skills
in alphabetic languages; and eventual success in school. They are well-established
precursors of individual differences in word reading and comprehension development
(e.g., Adams, 1990; Senechal et al., 1998; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994).
Vocabulary knowledge is necessary for reading comprehension (e.g., Juel, 1994;
Stanovich, 1986). Phonological sensitivity refers to sensitivity to and ability to
manipulate the sound structure of oral language. Children who are better at
detecting and manipulating syllables, rhymes, or phonemes are quicker to learn to
read, and this relation is present even after variability in reading skill due to factors
such as intelligence quotient, receptive vocabulary, memory skills, and social class is
partialled out (e.g., Bryant, MacLean, Bradley, & Crossland, 1990; Wagner,
Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994). Phonemic awareness (often called phonological
awareness) is the ability to manipulate the individual phonemes within words and is
considered to be the most complex or most developed stage of phonological
sensitivity (e.g., Adams). Recent studies have demonstrated that individual
differences in phonological sensitivity are relatively stable across time from late
preschool (e.g., Byrne, Freebody, & Gates, 1992; Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony,
2000; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte), and that individual differences in preschool
levels of phonological sensitivity are related to subsequent individual differences in
literacy development (e.g., Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony). However, despite the
importance of phonological sensitivity to the emergence of literacy skills, little is
known about the relation of HLE to its development (e.g., Burgess, 1999).
Questions concerning the HLE and its relation to different educational and
developmental outcomes are important for several reasons. First, the call for parents
and schools to provide more and better literacy resources for children has become an
educational priority, but we have a relatively poor understanding of the factors within
the HLE that explain its influence on literacy’s development and maintenance over
time or of the specific aspects of the HLE that are important at different
developmental stages for a variety of educationally relevant outcomes (e.g., letter
knowledge, phonological sensitivity) (Burgess & Lonigan, 1997; Debaryshe, 1995;
Senechal et al., 1998). Therefore, in order to design more effective and long-lasting
interventions, more research on the HLE is needed (Debaryshe; Leseman & de Jong,
1998, online document).
Second, in order to develop models of the development of literacy and language
outcomes that incorporate the influence of the HLE, more studies are required to
untangle the web of correlations among elements of the HLE and the various
developmental and educational outcomes researchers have examined.
Overview of the Study
The study described in this article sought to extend earlier work on the relationship
between the preschool HLE and developmental and educational outcomes related to
early literacy acquisition. More specifically, the relations between shared reading and
oral language and phonological sensitivity were examined in 115 four- and five-yearold children from middle-income homes. Information regarding HLE was obtained via
a survey completed by parents. It was expected that shared reading would be
significantly related to language and phonological sensitivity but that the relation
would vary by developmental outcome.
Methods
Participants. The participants were 115 four- and five-year-olds (mean age, 60.4
months; SD = 5.41; range, 48 to 70 months) recruited from childcare centers
serving predominately middle-class families for a larger longitudinal study exploring
the development of phonological sensitivity. Only those children for whom home
literacy environment data were available were included in the analyses (N=97). The
sample consisted of approximately equal numbers of boys and girls. The children
were all from middle-class families, as established by Hollingshead’s (1975) Four
Factor Index. This index combines parental occupation and education level to
estimate socioeconomic status.
Procedure. After the researchers obtained informed consent from parents, children
were tested individually by trained research assistants in their childcare centers. Test
administration for individual children was conducted over two to four sessions within
a 2-week period to ensure optimal performance on all tasks. Children completed two
standardized tests of oral language and four tests of phonological sensitivity. The
HLE was assessed via a survey completed by parents.
Oral language measures. The grammatical closure subtest of the Illinois Test of
Psycholinguistic Abilities (Kirk, McCarthy, & Kirk, 1968) requires the child to provide
a grammatically correct word to complete a sentence prompt that describes a
sequence of two pictures. This test was used as an estimate of children’s expressive
language abilities. The grammatical understanding subtest of the Test of Language
Development--Primary (Newcomer & Hammill, 1991) requires children to select the
correct picture out of three possible choices that corresponds to a sentence spoken
by the examiner. This test was used as an estimate of children’s receptive language
abilities.
Phonological sensitivity measures. Four tasks were used to assess different
aspects of children’s phonological sensitivity. Previous analyses of these four tasks
indicated that they have moderate to high internal consistencies for young children
(Lonigan et al., 1998; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994) and are predictive of
subsequent phonological sensitivity and word-reading abilities (Burgess & Lonigan,
1998; Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000). Previous analyses also indicated that
different word units (i.e., word, syllable, phoneme level) are best described by a
single phonological sensitivity factor (Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony; Wagner,
Torgesen, & Rashotte).
A rhyme oddity detection task, patterned after the task developed by MacLean,
Bryant, and Bradley (1987) and using their word list, required children to
demonstrate awareness of rhyme. Children were presented with three pictured words
(e.g., boat, nail, sail) and were asked to select the one that did not rhyme with (or
that sounded different from) the other two. Two practice trials and 11 test trials were
presented to all children. Corrective feedback was given during the practice trials,
but no feedback was given during the practice trials. Internal consistency at Time 1
(alpha = .71) was moderate.
An alliteration oddity detection task, also patterned after the task developed by
MacLean, Bryant, and Bradley (1987), using their word list, required children to
demonstrate awareness of singleton word onsets. Children were presented with three
pictured words (e.g., car, cat, sun) and were asked to select the one that did not
sound the same at the beginning (or that sounded different) at the beginning of the
word as the other two. Two practice trials and eleven test trials were presented to all
children. Corrective feedback was given during the test trials. Internal consistency at
Time 1 was moderate (alpha = .68).
A blending task, patterned after the task used by Wagner, Torgesen, and Rashotte
(1994), required children to combine word elements to form a word. Three practice
items and the first eight trials were presented both verbally and with pictures; the
remaining test trials were presented verbally only. In both picture [view 288K video
clip] and nonpicture trials, the first five items required blending single-syllable words
to form compound words, and the remaining items required blending syllables or
phonemes. For picture items involving compound words, the examiner showed the
child two pictures and named them (e.g., “This is a cow and this is a boy”) and then
asked the child what word would be produced if you said them together (e.g., “What
do you get when you say ‘cow’ and ‘boy’ together?”).
All practice items required the blending of compound words, during which the
experimenter emphasized the nature of the task by physically putting the picture
together while presenting the trial. Practice items were followed by correction,
explanation, and readministration (up to three times) if the child did not produce the
correct response, and confirmation and explanation if the child provided the correct
answer. There was no feedback on the test trials. There were 18 test trials,
consisting of 10 word-blending items, 4 syllable-blending items, and 4 phonemeblending items. Testing was discontinued after a child missed five consecutive trials.
The internal consistency of the task was high (alpha = .91).
An elision task, also patterned after a task used by Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte
(1994), required children to say a word minus a specific sound. Two practice items
and the first eight test trials were presented both verbally and with pictures; the
remaining test trials were presented verbally only. In both picture [view 400K video
clip] and nonpicture trials, the first four items required deleting a single-syllable
word from a compound word to form a new word. Subsequent items in both picture
and nonpicture trials required deletion of a syllable or a phoneme from a word to
form a new word. Both practice items used compound words. For picture items
involving compound words, the examiner showed the child two pictures and named
them (e.g., “This is a bat, and this is a man”) and then asked the child to say the
compound (i.e., “batman”) prior to being asked to delete part of it.
During practice trials, the examiner emphasized the nature of the task by physically
removing the picture of the word to be deleted. Practice trials were followed by
correction, explanation, and readministration (up to two times) if the child did not
produce the correct response, and confirmation and explanation if the child provided
the correct answer. There was no feedback on the test trials. There were 15 test
trials, consisting of 8 word-level items, 4 syllable-level items, and 3 phoneme-level
items. Testing was discontinued after a child missed five consecutive trials. Internal
consistency of the task was high (alpha = .88).
Home Literacy Environment Questionnaire. The HLE was assessed via parental
responses to a written questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to assess a
wide range of elements of the HLE (e.g., family demographics, parental leisure
reading habits, family storybook reading habits) and was patterned after the survey
developed by Whitehurst and colleagues (e.g., Payne, Whitehurst, & Angell, 1994).
Social class information was detailed with questions about family income, parental
occupation, and parental educational level. The shared reading patterns of the family
were described by questions asking parents to estimate the number of children’s
books in the home, the age at which they first read to their child, and the current
frequency and duration of shared reading episodes.
Results
Preliminary examination of the data indicated that some variables deviated from
normality (e.g, elision scores were negatively skewed). Transformation of these
variables (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989) improved their distributions but did not
change the pattern of correlations between variables or the pattern of results for the
correlation or multiple regression analyses reported below. Therefore, all analyses
were carried out using the untransformed variables.
The number of child variables was reduced by forming unit-weighted composite
variables for phonological sensitivity and oral language. Each composite variable was
created by averaging the standard scores of the relevant variables (e.g., the
phonological sensitivity composite was the average of the four z-scored transformed
phonological sensitivity tasks). The use of unit-weighted composite variables does
not eliminate task-specific variance to the same extent as latent variables; however,
it does reduce the possibility that estimates of relations in regression analyses will be
specific to one particular set of stimulus materials or method of measurement
(Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, Burgess, & Hecht, 1997).
The HLE variables were scaled such that higher z-scores represented more desirable
outcomes. For example, a lower age of first shared reading experience would be
more desirable. This was done to take into account the likely negative correlations
between some variables (e.g., shared reading onset and oral language).
The children attended seven different childcare centers. No formal observational data
were collected regarding the educational activities the centers provided the children,
but the activities varied in terms of the number of educational materials available
and the willingness of the staff to engage in activities such as shared reading. A
separate series of analyses were also conducted to determine if the observed results
were due in part to differences in the educational experiences the children received
in their childcare environments. Controlling for the center attended did not alter the
pattern of results reported in the following analyses.
Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics for age and the measures of
phonological sensitivity, oral language, and the HLE are shown in Table 1. There was
substantial variability in all the measures for this age group. These results indicate
that, despite their young age, the children were able to perform the phonological
sensitivity tasks. Parents reported a wide range of literacy experiences and their
responses indicated that, for many children, shared reading activities were an
established and frequent part of the home routine. For example, parental reports of
children’ age at the first shared reading ranged from birth to 18 months, with an
average of 7.3 months; parents reported a range of 5 to 500 children’s books in the
home, with an average of 137.8 (SD = 92.8).
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations (SD), and Ranges for Children’s Ages and
Indices of Phonological Sensitivity, Oral Language, and Home Literacy
Environment (HLE) (N=97)
Variable
Mean
SD
Range (min.max.)
Chronological age (months)
60.4
5.41
48-70
Phonological sensitivity (%)a
58.9
18.58
16-98
Rhyme oddity
6.49
2.75
1-11
Alliteration oddity
5.46
2.64
0-11
Blending
12.22
5.03
0-18
Elision
8.87
4.21
0-15
Grammatical understandingb
10.7
2.78
3-16
Grammatical closureb
43.01
10.03
21-66
Age first read to (months)
7.32
4.48
0-18
No. children’s in home
137.75
92.85
5-500
Shared reading frequency (no. times per
week)
5.71
2.35
2-14
Shared reading duration (no. minutes per
week)
146.64
89.31
15-420
48.01
7.13
30.5-66.0
Oral language
HLE
Hollingshead (1975) indexc
Average percent correct on the four phonological sensitivity tasks.
Standard scores from tabled values.
c
Composite index of socioeconomic status combining levels of parental education and
occupation.
a
b
Bivariate correlations. Correlations between HLE and measures of oral language
and phonological sensitivity are shown in Table 2. The correlations varied extensively
in magnitude across, as well as within, the different outcomes examined. The
average correlation for the oral language composite with the different measures used
was .25, with three of the five relations significant. The average correlation was .20
for the measure of receptive vocabulary and .19 for expressive vocabulary, with
three of the five relations significant in each case. The average correlation of the
home environment with phonological sensitivity was .16, with only the estimate of
first age read to being significant. The finding that socioeconomic status was not
significantly related to these outcome measures was not completely unexpected
given the predominately middle-class nature of the sample. The magnitude of the
correlations between the home environment and the two measures of oral language
found in the present study was similar to those obtained in the reviews conducted by
Scarborough and Dobrich (1994) and Bus, van Ijzendoorn, and Pelligrini (1995).
Table 2
Correlations of Measures of Phonological Sensitivity, Oral Language, and
Shared Reading (N=97)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1. Phonological
sensitivity
2. Oral language
composite
.50** ---
3. Receptive
vocabulary
.31** .78*** ---
4. Expressive
vocabulary
.53** .66*** .21* ---
No. of children’s
books
.18
6. Age at onset of
shared reading
.32** .32**
.25* .25*
.26*
7. Shared reading
frequency
.16
.29**
.27* .23*
.36** .40** ---
8. Shared reading
duration
.03
.10
.05
.10
.23*
.32** .53** ---
9. Socioeconomic
status
.12
.17
.14
.05
.19
.19
.19
.10 ---
10. Age
.39** ---
---
---
.04
.01
.08
.00 .05 ---
.36**
.26* .31** -----
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Multiple regression analyses. Multiple regression was used to determine the
extent to which individual differences in the preschool HLE explained individual
differences in the measures of oral language and phonological sensitivity. Separate
sets of regression analyses were conducted for oral language and phonological
sensitivity. In each model, chronological age and socioeconomic status were entered
first and then the shared reading variables were entered in the second step. See
Table 3 for the results of the multiple regressions.
Table 3
Regression of Shared Reading Measures on Language Ability and
Phonological Sensitivity (N=97)
Dependent Variable
Predictor
Step
Age
1
Oral
Language
Receptive
Vocabulary
Expressive
Vocabulary
Phonological
Sensitivity
-.04
-.02
.03
.39**
.06
.06
-.04
.04
.26*
.19
.22*
.09
Age at onset of
shared reading
-.22*
-.18
-.16
-.31*
Shared reading
frequency
.16
.04
.20
.09
Shared reading
duration
-.12
-.03
-.16
-.20
R2 change for step 2
14.6%
8.3%
14.4%
12.6%
Total R2
15.6%
10.7%
16.3%
29.3%
Socioeconomic
status
Step No. of children’s
2
books
* < .05, ** < .01
For the oral language composite, the addition of the shared reading variables added
14.6 percent explained variance to the model. The number of children’s books in the
home and the age at onset of shared reading were the only significant unique
predictors. When the oral language measures were examined individually, the shared
reading variables added 8.3 percent explained variance to the prediction of the
measure of receptive vocabulary, but none of the individual predictors was
significant. The addition of the shared reading variables added 14.4 percent unique
variance to the prediction of the measure of expressive vocabulary, with the number
of children’s books the only significant unique predictor. For the phonological
sensitivity composite, the addition of the shared reading variables added 12.6
percent explained variance to the model. Age at onset of shared reading and age
were the only significant unique predictors.
The bivariate correlations and multiple regression results indicate that shared
reading is associated with oral language and phonological sensitivity development in
this subject sample, but that the magnitude of this relation depends on the manner
in which shared reading was conceptualized and the particular outcome examined.
For example, the measures of shared reading which more closely tapped the longterm nature of the home environment, such as the number of children’s books in the
home and the age at onset of shared reading, were more highly associated with the
developmental outcomes assessed in this study.
Discussion
Literacy acquisition is thought to start at an early age, long before formal reading
instruction begins. An early introduction to books and participation in literacy and
literacy-related activities with parents are seen as important in the preparation of
children for school-based formal instruction. There are differences in the home
literacy environments provided by families and thus, in the preparation of children
for school learning (e.g., Neuman & Celano, 2001, online document). The present
study highlights the importance of early and sustained shared reading experiences in
the development of oral language and phonological sensitivity in young children. This
study adds to the growing body of evidence demonstrating that early exposure to
literacy in the form of shared reading is related to educational and developmental
outcomes (e.g., Bus, van Ijzendoorn, & Pelligrini, 1995; Koskinen, Blum, Bisson,
Phillips, Creamer, & Baker, 2000). It extends previous research by including multiple
measures of shared reading and books as well as multiple measures of language
outcomes thought to be important to the development of literacy.
Results of the study indicate that shared reading is related to language outcomes in
preschool-aged children and that the magnitude of the relation varies by the manner
in which shared reading is measured and language outcome assessed. The shared
reading variables were significantly related to the oral language composite,
expressive and receptive vocabulary, and phonological sensitivity. This finding is
important because it demonstrates that shared reading is associated with a variety of
language outcomes and not just with variables such as environmental print and
letter knowledge.
This is one of the first studies to demonstrate a relationship between phonological
sensitivity and shared reading. As mentioned previously, deficits in phonological
sensitivity are thought to be most significant factor for most children having difficulty
learning to read (e.g., Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994). Future studies
designed to explore the role of shared reading in the development of phonological
sensitivity are needed. In addition, the present study examined a sample of families
from predominately middle-class homes. Therefore, the results must be interpreted
with caution until studies are undertaken with families from more diverse social and
economic backgrounds.
Interestingly, measures of shared reading were more likely to be significantly related
to the outcomes when they took into account more cumulative than concurrent
aspects of shared reading. For example, the earlier a child is read to, the more likely
he or she is to be exposed to a greater number of shared reading episodes over
time. The cumulative measures may reflect a greater emphasis on literacy behaviors
over time in the home than the concurrent measures. The concurrent measures may
fluctuate more freely with activities that compete for time in the family (e.g., work,
seasonal sports) and thus be a poorer and less consistent estimate of the overall
quality of the literacy environment of the child (e.g., Debaryshe, 1995).
The continued examination of the relations between shared reading and other home
literacy variables with educational outcomes is necessary for several reasons. First,
the growing demand for parental participation in the educational process is reflected
in the widespread call for parents to read more to their children. This begs the
question of how parental time and effort is best expended. We need continued
examination of the kinds of activities parents engage in with children and which
outcomes they influence. A number of studies have documented that specific shared
reading practices effect vocabulary and other reading-related skill development (e.g.,
Murray, Stahl, & Ivey, 1996; Whitehurst et al., 1994). For example, Murray, Stahl,
and Ivey found that parents’ reading of alphabet books to children was associated
with children’s gains in phonological sensitivity. This is consistent with the idea that
letter knowledge aids in the development of phonological sensitivity (e.g., Burgess &
Lonigan, 1998). Others have suggested specific books that may develop readingrelated skills such as phonological awareness (e.g., Opitz, 1998). More attention has
to be given to educating parents, those asked by educators and politicians to put
these practices into place.
Second, if programs designed to increase literacy levels by manipulating some
aspect of the home literacy environment are to be effective, we need to understand
not only which aspects of the environment to manipulate but also why parents
provide the kinds of environments they do (e.g., Leseman & de Jong, 1998). For
example, there a number of possible reasons why a parent may not read to a child:
perhaps he or she is not comfortable reading aloud, or does not have easy access to
literacy materials. Therefore, changing the home environment may require more
than merely an understanding that it relates to certain outcomes; it may require an
understanding of the complex factors that determine the literacy environment’s
development and maintenance. A recent analysis of family literacy programs
emphasized a need to include social and cultural factors in programs designed to
encourage literacy activities in the home (Neuman, Caperelli, & Kee, 1998).
Therefore, as mentioned previously, we must examine how to put into practice most
effectively the shared reading methods that have been shown to improve readingrelated skills.
In conclusion, this study adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that the
home environment of young children is important in the educational process. It
extends prior research by including phonological sensitivity and multiple measures of
language development.
I now join in the call for a greater emphasis on educating parents on the specific
methods they can use in the home to better prepare children to benefit from the
formal educational environment. I also add a note of caution: merely asking parents
to read may not be enough. We need to better understand the motivators within the
home environment so educators can provide parents the knowledge and resources
which will increase the effectiveness of parental practice as well as the likelihood that
parents will continue the targeted behaviors.
References
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bryant, P.E., MacLean, M., Bradley, L.L., & Crossland, J. (1990). Rhyme and
alliteration, phoneme detection, and learning to read. Developmental Psychology, 26,
429-438.
Burgess, S.R. (1999). Parental characteristics that predict children’s home literacy
environment. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Southwestern
Psychological Association, Albuquerque, NM.
Burgess, S.R., & Lonigan, C.J. (1997, March). A meta-analysis examining the
influence of the home literacy environment on early reading development: Paper lion
or king of the reading jungle. Paper presented at a meeting of the Society for the
Scientific Study of Reading, Chicago, IL.
Burgess, S.R., & Lonigan, C.J. (1998). Bidirectional relations between phonological
awareness and reading extended to preschool letter knowledge: Evidence from a
longitudinal investigation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70, 117-141.
Bus, A.G., van Ijzendoorn, M.H., & Pelligrini, A. (1995). Joint book reading makes for
success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of
literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65, 1-21.
Byrne, B., Freebody, P., & Gates, A. (1992). Longitudinal data on the relations of
word-reading strategies to comprehension, reading time, and phonemic awareness.
Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 141-151.
Carroll, J.B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). Word frequency book. New York:
American Heritage.
Debaryshe, B.D. (1995). Maternal belief systems: Linchpin in the home reading
process. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 1-20.
Dickinson, D.K., & Snow, C.E. (1987). Interrelationships among prereading and oral
language skills in kindergarten from two social classes. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 2, 1-25.
Dunning, D.B., Mason, J.M., & Stewart, J.P. (1994). Reading to preschoolers: A
response to Scarborough and Dobrich (1994) and recommendations for future
research. Developmental Review, 14, 324-339.
Ehri, L.C., & Sweet, J. (1991). Fingerpoint-reading of memorized text: What enables
beginners to process print? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 442-463.
Hess, R.D., Hollaway, S.D., Dickson, W.P., & Price, G.G. (1984). School readiness
and later achievement in vocabulary and mathematics in sixth grade. Child
Development, 55, 1902-1912.
Hiebert, E.H. (1980). The relationship of logical reasoning ability, oral language
comprehension, and home experiences to preschool children’s print awareness.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 12, 313-324.
Hollingshead, A.B. (1975). Four factor index of social issues. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Iverson, B.K., & Walberg, H.J. (1982). Home environment and school learning: A
qualitative synthesis. Journal of Experimental Education, 50, 144-151.
Juel, C. (1994). Learning to read and write in one elementary school. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Kirk, S.A., McCarthy, J.J., & Kirk, W.D. (1968). Illinois test of psycholinguistic
abilities. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Koskinen, P.S., Blum, I.H., Bisson, S.A., Phillips, S.M., Creamer, T.S., & Baker, T.K.
(2000). Book access, shared reading, and audio models: The effects of supporting
the literacy learning of linguistically diverse students in school and at home. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 92, 23-36.
Leseman, P.P., & de Jong, P.F. (1998). Home literacy: Opportunity, instruction,
cooperation and social-emotional quality predicting early reading achievement.
Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 294-319. Available:
www.catchword.com/ira/00340553/v33n3/contp1-1.htm
Lonigan, C.J. (1994). Reading to preschoolers exposed: Is the emperor really naked?
Developmental Review, 14, 303-323.
Lonigan, C.J., Burgess, S.R., & Anthony, J.A. (2000). Development of emergent
literacy and reading skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latent variable
longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 36, 596-613.
Lonigan, C.J., Burgess, S.R., Anthony, J.L., & Barker, T.A. (1998). Development of
phonological sensitivity in 2- to 5-year-old children. Educational Psychology, 90, 294311.
MacLean, M., Bryant, P., & Bradley, L. (1987). Rhymes, nursery rhymes, and reading
in early childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 255-281.
Meyer, L.A., Stahl, S.A., Wardrop, J.L., & Linn, R.L. (1994). The effects of reading
storybooks aloud to children. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 869-884.
Murray, B.A., Stahl, S.A., & Ivey, M.G. (1996). Developing phoneme awareness
through alphabet books. Reading & Writing, 8, 307-322.
Neuman, S.B., Caperelli, B.J., & Kee, C. (1998). Literacy learning, a family matter.
Reading Teacher, 52, 244-252.
Neuman, S.B., & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and middleincome communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research
Quarterly, 36, 8-26. Available: www.catchword.com/ira/00340553/v36n1/contp11.htm
Newcomer, P.L., & Hammill, D.D. (1991). Test of language development--primary
(2nd ed.). Austin, TX: ProEd.
Opitz, M.F. (1998). Children’s books to develop phonemic awareness -- for you and
parents, too! Reading Teacher, 51, 526-528.
Payne, A.C., Whitehurst, G.J., & Angell, A.L. (1994). The role of the home literacy
environment in the development of language ability in preschool children from lowincome families. Early Child Research Quarterly, 9, 427-440.
Scarborough, H.S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers.
Developmental Review, 14, 145-302.
Senechal, M., LeFevre, J., Thomas, E.M., & Daley, K.E. (1998). Differential effects of
home literacy experiences on the development of oral and written language. Reading
Research Quarterly, 33, 96-116. Available:
www.catchword.com/ira/00340553/v33n1/contp1-1.htm
Share, D.L., Jorm, A.F., Maclean, R., & Matthews, R. (1984). Sources of individual
differences in reading acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1309-1324.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New
York: HarperCollins.
Teale, W.H. (1986). Home background and young children’s literacy development. In
W.H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Burgess, S.R., & Hecht, S.A. (1997).
Contributions of phonological awareness and rapid autonomic naming ability to the
growth of word-reading skills in second- to fifth-grade children. Scientific Study of
Reading, 2, 161-185.
Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1994). Development of readingrelated phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from
a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73-87.
Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., Rashotte, C.A., Hecht, S.A., Barker, T.A., Burgess,
S.R., Donahue, J., & Garon, T. (1997). Changing relations between phonological
processing abilities and word level reading as children develop from beginning to
skilled readers: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33, 468479.
Walberg, H.J., & Tsai, S. (1985). Correlates of reading achievement and attitude: A
national assessment study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 159-167.
White, K.R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic
achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 461-481.
Whitehurst, G.J., Arnold, D.H., Epstein, J.N., Angell, A.L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J.E.
(1994). A picture book intervention in daycare and home for children from lowincome families. Developmental Psychology, 30, 679-689.
Whitehurst, G.J., & Lonigan, C.J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy.
Child Development, 69, 848-872.