Examining the Relationship Between Kindergarten Literacy Instructional Practices and Kindergarten Literacy Achievement - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Examining the Relationship Between Kindergarten Literacy Instructional Practices and Kindergarten Literacy Achievement PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 3d7379-ZDllM



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Examining the Relationship Between Kindergarten Literacy Instructional Practices and Kindergarten Literacy Achievement

Description:

Examining the Relationship Between Kindergarten Literacy Instructional Practices and Kindergarten Literacy Achievement By Sonia Michael, Ph.D Eastern Kentucky University – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:83
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 29
Provided by: readingOr
Learn more at: http://reading.org
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Examining the Relationship Between Kindergarten Literacy Instructional Practices and Kindergarten Literacy Achievement


1
Examining the Relationship Between Kindergarten
Literacy Instructional Practices and Kindergarten
Literacy Achievement By Sonia Michael,
Ph.D Eastern Kentucky University
Sonia.michael_at_eku.edu
2
Purpose
  • To examine the effect of teaching practices and
    classroom environments on the development of
    literacy in kindergarten children.

3
Research Questions
  • Is there a relationship between kindergarten
    teaching practices and literacy development in
    kindergarten children?
  • Does literacy development differ according to the
    childs gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status,
    home literacy environment, or home language, and
    if so, what is the relationship between these
    outcomes and classroom practices?

4
Data Sources
  • Classroom Measures
  • The Early Language and Literacy Classroom
    Observation Toolkit (ELLCO)
  • Assessment of Practices in Early Elementary
    Classrooms (APEEC)
  • Instructional Activities Scale (IAS)
  • Teacher Interviews

5
Data Sources
  • Child Literacy Measures
  • Data from the K-2 Literacy Portfolio
  • Four areas of literacy development
  • Home Literacy Measure
  • Home Literacy Questionnaire (Frijters, Barron,
    Brunello, 2000)
  • Five questions regarding home literacy practices

6
Subjects
  • Three groups of subjects
  • Kindergarten teachers
  • All 18 kindergarten teachers from the school
    system participated
  • Kindergarten students
  • 204 (61) of the total 334 kindergarten students
    participated in the study
  • Parents
  • Parents of participating students were asked to
    complete a home literacy measure

7
Data Collection Procedures
  • Classroom observations by the lead researcher
    using standardized measures
  • Simultaneous observations by an assistant
    researcher to maintain reliability
  • Standardized open-ended interviews with teachers
  • Teachers complete Instructional Activities Scale
  • Data collected from each childs Literacy
    Portfolio
  • Surveys sent home with children

8
Quantitative Data Analysis Procedures
  • Preliminary Multiple Regression analysis to
    predict literacy outcomes
  • Independent student variables socioeconomic
    status, home literacy, home language, gender,
    ethnicity
  • Independent classroom variables classroom scores
    on APEEC and ELLCO and IAS

9
Quantitative Data Analysis Methods
  • Two Level Hierarchical Linear Modeling analysis
  • Variables found significant in preliminary
    analysis
  • Student level variables
  • Classroom level variables

10
Qualitative Data Analysis Methods
  • Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed
  • Interviews were analyzed using Grounded Theory
    (Charmaz, 2000 Lincoln Guba, 1985) to identify
    emergent themes
  • Use of member checks and an external reviewer
    were used for reliability purposes (Lincoln
    Guba, 1985)

11
Student Demographics
  • Ethnicity
  • White 56 (n106)
  • African American 12.7 (n26)
  • Hispanic/Latino 32.4 (n66)
  • Other 2.9 (n6)
  • Socioeconomic Status
  • Free/Reduced Lunch Status 49.5 (n101)
  • Full Pay Status 50.5 (n103)

12
Student Demographics
  • Gender
  • Male 53.4 (n109)
  • Female 46.6 (n95
  • Home Language
  • English 69.1 (n141)
  • Not English 30.9 (n63)

13
Teacher Demographics
  • Degree
  • Elementary Education 78 (n 14)
  • Early Childhood 17 (n3)
  • Education of the Deaf 5 (n1)
  • Licensure
  • K-6 75 (n14)
  • B-K 17 (n3)
  • Hearing Impaired with B-K add-on 5 (n1)
  • Experience
  • 20 years 50 (n9)
  • 16-20 years 11 (n2)
  • 5-15 17 (n3)
  • lt 5 22 (n4)

14
Demographics of Families Returning Surveys
  • 159 (78) of the families returned the Home
    Literacy Questionnaire
  • Ethnicity
  • White 56.6 (n90)
  • African American 11.9 (n19)
  • Hispanic/Latino 27.7 (n44)
  • Other 3.8 (n6)

15
Demographics of Families Returning Surveys
  • Socioeconomic Status
  • Free/Reduced Lunch 46 (n73)
  • Full Pay Status 54 (n86)
  • Home Language
  • English 74 (n118)
  • Not English 26 (n41)

16
Results
  • Student variables predicted 17 of the variance
    in childrens literacy growth
  • The most significant predictors were home
    literacy (p.000) and socioeconomic status (p
    .011), which accounted for about 15 of the
    variance in childrens literacy growth

17
Results
  • Home literacy and socioeconomic status were
  • Negatively correlated with literacy growth
  • Positively correlated with literacy pre-test
    scores
  • In other words children from lower socioeconomic
    status and from homes with fewer literacy
    activities showed more growth
  • Classroom variables did not appear to contribute
    to the model and accounted for only about 1 of
    the variance

18
Results
  • Hierarchical Linear Modeling was employed to
    verify significance
  • Home Literacy and Socioeconomic Status were still
    significant
  • Home Literacy p .068
  • Socioeconomic Status p .005

19
Results
  • Qualitative Analysis
  • Interview data was consistent with observational
    data
  • Emerging themes
  • Integrating instruction
  • Meeting diverse needs of students
  • Involving parents
  • Using assessment information to re-teach

20
Teacher Quote
  • Based on their developmental level, if I have a
    child that comes in at the beginning of the year
    and theyre already reading then Im going to
    base their language and literacy on the level
    that their working in.

21
Teacher Quote
  • So its not this thing that you have to know this
    every week. Its progress, making progress. If
    they learn one more letter or one more sound, and
    it depends on the child, too, because some
    children cant make as much progress as others,
    so its not quite fair to say you have to know
    all ten of these words.

22
Teacher Quote
  • I conference with each child every day. I pull
    one or two aside and just kind of work with them
    so they arent just trying to put something down
    and give me a string of letters. I get the kids
    to expand sentences and use some descriptors.

23
Teacher Quote
  • And the Leapfrogs. Theres one on math and one
    on language arts, also. We send them home a lot
    at the first of the year. I usually let the
    children keep them for several weeks at a time,
    and that helps them learn the alphabet and the
    numbers and things like that. When they feel
    like they want to let somebody else use it,
    theyll bring it back and Ill let somebody else
    use it.

24
Teacher Quote
  • I send a book home every day. We go to the
    library everyday and send those books home. I
    send paper home and crayons home and let them
    know that whatever they need. I just try to
    provide whatever they need.

25
Teacher Quote
  • The kids take home a book in a bag every night.
    The books were bought with a grant to encourage
    parents to read to their children and to try to
    get books in their hands. The Hispanic parents we
    find it is helpful to the adults and the
    children. The books have patterned stories in
    them and theyre all learning from them.

26
Conclusions
  • Although classroom measures did not predict
    childrens literacy growth, teachers are making a
    difference as evidenced by significant literacy
    growth in children from lower socioeconomic
    status and children from homes with lower scores
    on the Home Literacy Questionnaire

27
Conclusions
  • Since affective measures were not used, it is
    possible that the teachers are influencing
    childrens interest in reading.
  • It is also highly probable that teachers are
    positively impacting the home literacy
    environment.

28
Conclusions
  • A follow-up study to examine the influence of
    kindergarten teachers on home literacy
    environments is needed.
  • Parent surveys concerning how parents perceive
    literacy information that is shared by teachers
    might enhance the findings of the current study.
About PowerShow.com