1. Improving Literacy Environments and Experiences for Children Birth to Five: Research and Resources
Nell K. Duke & Annie M. Moses,
Michigan State University & the Literacy Achievement Research Center

2. Plan for this Presentation
Results of survey and observation study
Professional resources for improving literacy for children birth to five
Excerpts of a videotape on promoting emergent literacy in child care settings
Strategies for improving literacy for children birth to five

3. Survey and Observation Study
Very little research has examined literacy environments and activities available in child care settings.
To our knowledge, no research has examined this in family and group home care settings.
Few needs assessments related to professional development around literacy birth to five are available.
As background to the survey and observation study that I will be talking about in a minute, I wanted to first highlight what research current tells us about emergent literacy activities and environments provided for children in early child care settings. First, there has been very little research that has examined literacy environments and activities available in child care settings. Second, we know of little research that has examined this in family and group home care settings, which we know are settings in which many children across the country receive care. Finally, few have assessed what is needed most in professional development materials around literacy for children birth to age five.

4. Research Questions Survey:
What do center-based and home-based child care providers report that they know about and do with respect to emergent literacy environments and activities?
Observation Study:
What do center-based child care providers actually do with respect to providing emergent literacy activities and environments?
Survey and Observation Study:
To what extent do child care providers’ reports match what is observed in centers with respect to emergent literacy environments and activities?
So from this, we had three research questions that guided this study. First, we wondered what do center-based and home-based child care providers report that they know about and do with respect to emergent literacy environments and activities? This we addressed with the survey portion of our study.
A second question guided this study was what do center-based child care providers actually do with respect to providing emergent literacy activities and environments? This was addressed through the observation portion of the study.
Finally, we asked to what extent do child care providers’ reports match what is observed in centers with respect to emergent literacy environments and activities. We were able to answer this question by looking at data from both the observation and survey portions of the study.

5. Participants
Survey:
A stratified (by care setting type) random sample of 337 center, group and home providers from across Michigan
Observation:
15 centers within 45 minutes of MSU (randomly selected but with some centers declining to participate)
6 observed rooms had mostly 2-year-olds
3 observed rooms had mostly 3-year-olds
6 observed rooms had mostly 4-year-olds
For the survey, 337 center, group and home providers were selected through stratified random sampling. The sample came from the population of all licensed child care providers across the state of Michigan. The sampling was stratified by care setting type, so that the portion of center and home care providers matched that in the population. Respondents included 168 center providers, 92 group home providers and 89 family home providers.
For the observation portion of the study, centers were randomly selected from the population of licensed care providers that were within 45 minutes of Michigan State’s campus. 15 centers agreed to be observed, and some centers declined. Of those observed, 6 rooms had mostly 2-year-olds, 3 had mostly 3-year-olds, and 6 had mostly 4-year-olds.
Just to clarify: In Michigan, providers caring for 1-6 unrelated children in the home would be licensed as a family home care facility. Caring for 7-12 children would considered a group home care facility, and a center setting would involve caring for children in a facility that is not a private residence.

6. Measures Survey: Questions related to: Response rate of 57.1%
Providers’ use of ELA with infants, toddlers and preschoolers
Demographic information
Access to different media and preferences for receiving professional development materials
Response rate of 57.1%
With respect to the measures used, the survey was developed for the purpose of this study and was based on the literature on emergent literacy and also survey measurements. Respondents completed questions regarding their own use of emergent literacy activities with infants, toddlers and preschoolers. They also were asked to provide demographic information about themselves and the settings as well as their access to different media and their preference for receiving professional development materials.
For the survey, there was a response rate of 57.1%

7. Measures, cont. Observation: PELLC survey PELLC observation form:
identifying and background information
activities (whether activity was observed, how many times, and for how many minutes)
characteristics of the print environment, and final notes and comments
ELLCO (Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation Record; Smith & Dickinson, with Sangeorge & Anastasopoulos, 2001):
literacy environment checklist
literacy activities rating scale
In the observation portion, measures included: again the PELLC survey, which each center provider who was observed completed. We also created an observation form based on the items from the survey, and these items helped observers find out identifying and background information for each provider and center. Observers also recorded whether specific emergent literacy activities were observed, how many times, and for how many minutes. Finally, observers took note of characteristics of the print environment and included final notes and comments that they may have had.
The observers also completed the ELLCO,or early language and literacy classroom observation record for each room observed. This included a literacy environment checklist and a literacy activities rating scale.

8. Measures Quality Survey:
Internal consistency, when measurable, high (Cronbach’s alpha )
Observation:
Correlated well with ELLCO on comparable items
Rankings of centers correlated .74
Survey and Observation:
Generally corresponded well but with discrepancies on some items
With respect to the quality of the measurements used, the survey had high internal consistency when measurable, with a Cronbach’s alpha of
We also found that the PELLC observation form correlated well with the ELLCO on comparable items. Also centers were ranked according to scores on the PELLC observation form and the ELLCO, and we found a .74 correlation for those rankings.
We also compared items on the PELLC survey and the PELLC observation form and found that they generally corresponded but there were a few discrepancies in what providers reported and what we observed in the centers.

9. The Survey: Select Results
Reading storybooks for each age was the highest reported ELA happening at least once a day:
For toddlers: 86.4%
For preschoolers: 89.4%
Other highly reported activities (between 80.5 – 87.5%) include:
Singing songs, having children look at books of their choice, have children draw or write (preschoolers), and including reading and writing materials in play centers (preschoolers)
Turning now to some results, I will be discussed some select results first from the survey. The highest reported emergent literacy activity reported by respondents was reading storybooks. This was reported happening everyday for toddlers by 86.4% of providers who completed the survey and 89.4% reported for preschoolers.
Other highly reported activities occurring everyday, ranging from 80.5 – 87.5%, included singing songs and having children look at books of their choice for both toddlers and preschoolers, and including reading and writing materials in play centers and having children draw of write for preschoolers.

10. The Survey: Select Results
Some of the lower reported ELA happening at least once a day (for toddlers & preschoolers):
Act out stories or have children do so (toddlers: 15.1%, preschoolers: 19.0%)
Teach parents how to read and write with children (toddlers: 7.7%, preschoolers: 8.6%)
Read information books or nonfiction (toddlers: 27.5%, preschoolers: 37.7%)
Show children how people use reading and writing in everyday life (toddlers: 26.9%, preschoolers: 36.5%)
Talk about or point to writing displayed in the room (toddlers: 44.7%, preschoolers: 54.9%)
There were also emergent literacy activities that were not often offered everyday for young children, as reported by their providers. These included acting out stories or having children do so and this was reported happening at least once a day by only 15.1% of providers caring for toddlers and 19% for those caring for preschoolers. Teaching parents how to read and write with children was also low, at 7.7% for toddlers and 8.6% for preschoolers. Providers did not report much reading information books or nonfiction at least once a day, with 27.5% doing so for toddlers and 37.7% reporting to do so for preschoolers.
Showing children how people use reading and writing in everyday life was another lower reported emergent literacy activity, with just 26.9% of respondents reporting doing so for toddlers and 36.5% doing so for preschoolers. One final lower report activity happening at least once a day included talking about or pointing to writing displayed in the room, which was reported by 44.7% of providers of toddlers and 54.9% for preschoolers.

11. The Survey: Select Results Reporting 30 Minutes or More of Literacy Activities
Infants (%)
Toddlers (%)
Preschoolers (%)
Kindergarteners (%)
NEVER
15.5
3.8
1.0
6.1
1-2 DAYS/ WEEK
28.0
14.0
6.2
9.8
3-4 DAYS/ WEEK
19.8
21.9
19.3
14.3
EVERY DAY
36.7
60.4
73.5
69.8 n
207
265
306
245
This table displays the breakdown of percentages of providers reporting that they provide 30 minutes or more of emergent literacy activities never, 1-2 days per week, 3-4 days per week or everyday. You’ll notice that the percentage especially for infants in the never category is higher than one would hope.

12. The Survey: Select Results Reporting 30 Minutes or More of Literacy Activities
30 minutes or more least common with infants, then toddlers, then preschoolers
Even in preschool, more than 1 in 4 centers did not report providing 30 minutes or more
Center settings generally reported more time with literacy than family or group settings (statistically significant differences for all age groups)
As the table showed, the percentages increase as age increases for those reporting 30 minutes or more everyday, however, there are still many children in settings where this is not happening enough. That is, even in preschool more than 1 in 4 centers did not report providing 39 minutes or more of emergent literacy activities. Generally though, care settings reported more time with literacy than family or group settings (and there were statistically significant differences for all age groups).
These results are particularly surprising when you consider that respondents to surveys tend to answer in ways that they think they should answer.

13. The Survey: Select Results Primary Caregiver Reported Understanding
"developmentally appropriate" (%)
"emergent literacy" (%)
NO UNDERSTANDING .6
4.6
LITTLE UNDERSTANDING
13.4
SOME UNDERSTANDING
19.3
34.5
STRONG UNDERSTANDING
79.5
47.6 n
331
328
Providers were also asked about their understanding of two terms: developmentally appropriate and emergent literacy. Results showed that many reported some understanding and most often a strong understanding of the term developmentally appropriate. However, this was not the case with emergent literacy. Less than half of the providers reported a strong understanding of emergent literacy. Finally, results also showed that reported understanding of terms were generally lower for family and group care providers than in providers in center settings.
Note: Reported understanding generally lower in family and group care settings than in center settings.

14. Observations: Select Results
Total number of minutes spent in ELA:
Most number of minutes observed:
210 minutes (43.75% of the 8 hours involved ELA)
Least number of minutes observed:
27 minutes (5.63% of the 8 hours involved ELA)
Turning now to the observation data, results showed that most centers provided at least 30 minutes of emergent literacy activities during the observation day (which was 8 hours), 2 centers failed to do so. The most number of minutes occurred in a center which provided 210 minutes. This meant that 43.75% of the eight hours was spent involved in emergent literacy activities. On the other side of the spectrum, the center with the fewest minutes spent in emergent literacy activities observed was 27 minutes or 5.63% of the 8 hours when the observer was there.

15. Observations: Select Results
Storybook reading observed in all but one site (4.65 minutes minutes total) (information book reading observed in only three sites)
Other commonly observed activities include:
singing (13 centers)
asking children to explain something (9 centers)
allowing children to look at books of their choice (9 centers)
Storybook reading was observed in all but one center, and the amount of time spend in storybook reading ranged from 4.65 minutes to over an hour across the eight hours. On the other hand, information book reading was observed in only three of the sites.
Other commonly observed activities included singing, which was seen in 13 centers, asking children to explain something, observed at 9 centers, and allowing children to look at books of their choice, observed at 9 centers as well. These connect well with what providers reported on the survey, since storybook reading, singing and allow children to look at books of their choice were among the highest reported activities.

16. Observations: Select Results
Rarely observed activities include:
writing in front of or with children (4 and 3 centers respectively)
tell stories or have children act out or tell stories (1, 2 and 1 centers respectively)
encourage or teach parents to read and write with children at home (not observed at all)
show children how people use reading and writing in everyday life (2 centers)
take children to library or visit mobile library (1 and 0 centers respectively)
help children learn to read and write their names (6 centers) or other words (2 centers)
There were many activities, however, that were rarely seen by observers across the sites. One was writing in front of children observed at 4 centers or writing with children, observed only at 3 centers. Telling stories was seen at 1 center, having children act out stories was observed in 2 centers, and having children tell stories was observed only in 1 center.
As was the case on the survey, encouraging or teaching parents to read and write with children at home was not observed in any of the sites. Only 2 centers were observed showing children how people use reading and writing in everyday life. 1 center took children to the library and no center was observed as visiting a mobile library. In only 6 centers were providers seen helping children learn to read and write their names, and only 2 were observed in helping children learn to read and write other words. This too seemed surprising since observers were in the centers for eight hours and these include important activities for promoting emergent literacy.

17. Observations Results:
Access to Books
The next few slides include graphs of some more observation results related to different aspects of the print environment documented by observers. This first graph displays the availability of books for children across the 15 centers. It shows that many centers had between 11 and 24 books available to children, and we can guess that this probably doesn’t meet the recommended 5 – 8 books per child for early child care settings.

18. Observations Results:
Books Displayed
In 33% of the centers, no books or book covers were displayed; however, in 40% of other centers, more than 10 were displayed. So this shows the range found and it seems like many of the centers were at either end of the scale.

19. Observations Results:
Play Areas with Print
Probably one of the most noticeable findings was the lack of print in play areas. Although the survey data showed that providing reading and writing materials in play centers was highly reported as occurring at least once a day, 73% of the centers that were observed did not have any print in the play centers. This was one major discrepancy when thinking about how survey results compared with observation results.

20. Observations Results: Number of Labels & Captions
Also noticeable was the fact that 40% of centers had no labels or captions in their environment. The rest of the centers were spread out as to how many labels or captions were found, from 1-5, 6-10, or more than 20.

21. Observations Results: Amount of Print on Walls
A final set of results includes the amount of print that observers found on the walls around the centers. They most often found print, and this was the case in 93% of the centers. Almost half of the centers had 1-5 pieces of print on the walls.

22. Professional Resources for Improving Literacy Birth to Five
College and university courses
District, regional, or state professional development initiatives
Professional conferences
Early Literacy Curricula, for example:
Breakthrough to Literacy
Literacy Express
High/Scope
And many others!

23. Professional Resources for Improving Literacy Birth to Five
Professional books, for example:
Starting Out Right (Burns, Snow, & Griffin, 1999)
Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children (Neuman, Copple, & Bredekamp, 2000)
New IRA Preschool Literacy Series
Literacy and the Youngest Learner: Best Practices for Educators of Children from Birth to Five (Bennett-Armistead, Duke, & Moses, 2005)
And many more!
Videotapes and hypermedia materials

24. PELLC (Promoting Emergent Literacy In Licensed Care) Videotape
Focuses on research-based strategies for promoting emergent literacy in child care settings
Features photographs and videoclips from exemplary group and center settings (includes infants, toddlers and preschoolers)
Includes commentary from Governor Jennifer Granholm, two literacy professors, and child care providers
Video authors: Duke, Moses, Billman, Zhang & Bennett-Armistead; Video partners: MSU FACT Coalition, Michigan FIA, Michigan Community Coordinated Child Care

25. PELLC (Promoting Emergent Literacy In Licensed Care) Videotape
Approximately 90 minutes, with six sections:
1. Promoting emergent literacy (20m)
2. Aspects of emergent literacy (12m)
3. Creating a rich literacy environment (18m)
4. Read aloud (16m)
5. Other literacy activities (14m)
6. Literacy beyond the walls of the care environment (16m)

26. Part 1: Introduction Importance of literacy
Fundamental concepts underlying videotape:
developmentally appropriate practice
emergent literacy
responsive teaching
Importance of oral language
Strategies for using the videotape

27. Part 2: Aspects of Literacy to Develop in Early Childhood
Concepts of print
Phonological awareness
Letter-sound knowledge
Word recognition
Genre knowledge
Understanding of text
Production of text
Interest in and love of literacy and learning
World knowledge

28. Part 4: Read Aloud Why: How: Book Selection
Build phonological awareness & letter-sound knowledge
Build concepts of print
Build comprehension skills
Build knowledge about the world
How:
Lap reading with one or few children
Interactive reading
Expressive reading
Book Selection

29. Part 6: Literacy Beyond the Walls of the Care Environment
Literacy outdoors
Literacy on field trips
Environmental print walks
Field trips to literacy-focused destinations
Field trips to other destinations
Connecting with families

30. Connecting with Families
Incentive programs
Take home bags and cubbies
Literacy-related notices
Modeling and documentation
“Funds of knowledge” activities
Surveys/focus groups/interviews/home visits
Workshops and family coaching

31. An Example of an Effective Parent Involvement Program for Language in K
Project EASE (Jordan, Snow, & Porche, 2000)
Five parent coaching sessions, one per month, on different themes related to language interactions around books
Followed a discussion outline; provided a take home guide; followed by parent-child practice activity
For three weeks following: scripted activities, involving books, sent home related to that month’s theme
The five themes were words, words, words; telling personal event narratives; discussing storybook narratives; discussing information-rich books; learning about letters and sounds.
Front

32. Strategies for Improving Literacy for Children Birth to Five
Implementing state-level initiatives (Michigan’s approach)
Making college and university courses accessible
Providing literacy-focused regional, local or care-setting-based professional development
Conducting family/parent education programs
Involving the K-12 community

33. Ways the K-12 Community Can Promote Emergent Literacy in Child Care Settings
Hold workshops for or with local child care providers
e.g., “Important knowledge skills for kindergarten”
e.g., “Working together: A summit of child care providers and elementary educators”
Distribute literacy-related materials to child care providers
e.g., Books and videotapes
Host literacy-related celebrations for children in child care (and elementary school)
e.g., A read-in, plays, and sing-alongs
Service learning programs involving child care settings as service sites

34. On Your Way Out . . .
Please sign up if you would like a copy of the paper about the survey and observation study
Please sign up if you would like to be notified if/when PELLC videotape is available for sale at cost
Please be in touch if you would like to pursue a doctorate specializing in early literacy 