Shanahan early literacy.pdf

Identifying Early Literacy Learning Needs

Implications for Child Outcome Standards and Assessment Systems

Elizabeth J. Spencer, Trina D. Spencer, Howard Goldstein, and Naomi Schneider

The origins of conventional literacy skills are evident in early childhood development. Emergent literacy skills, as measured in pre-school and kindergarten, are strong predictors of later literacy achievement. Current educational research and policy (e.g., No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) emphasize assessment of preschool children to inform identification and instruction. The assessment of emergent literacy skills can serve to identify those children who may be at risk for later reading difficulties. Furthermore, assessment can guide the content and delivery of early literacy instruction. Failure to identify children early and provide appropriate intervention to promote emergent literacy skills is likely to have serious repercussions for later development of conventional reading skills.

Effective early literacy assessment can provide valuable information. However, decisions about what to assess must be guided by evidence. The National Early Literacy Panel (NELP; 2008) report identifies those emergent literacy skills that are reliable predictors of later reading skill. In this chapter we review the predictors identified by NELP and make recommendations for assessment relative to those predictors. We discuss the different purposes of early literacy assessment and provide guidelines for the implementation of a measurement framework that encompasses these purposes in light of the availability of well-developed assessments. We also discuss the alignment of assessment with state early childhood education standards.

WHAT INFORMATION DOES THE NELP REPORT PROVIDE TO INFORM EARLY LITERACY ASSESSMENT?

One purpose of the NELP report was to identify preschool and kindergarten predictors of conventional literacy skills. To address this research question, the panel conducted a meta-analysis of empirical studies published in refereed journals. The selected studies provided information to allow for the calculation of average correlations to identify predictors that were interpreted as strong (average correlations of .50 or larger), moderate (between .30–.49), and small (less than .30); a minimum of three studies examining a predictor variable were required to compute an effect size. The panel identified a set of skills that are precursors to later literacy achievement in decoding, reading comprehension, and spelling. A review of correlational evidence identified skills with high predictive validity, including alphabet knowledge (knowledge of letter names and sounds), phonological awareness (the ability to detect, manipulate, or analyze spoken words independent of meaning), rapid automatized naming, early writing or name writing, and phonological memory. Skills with moderate predictive validity included concepts about print, print knowledge, oral language, visual processing, and reading readiness.

As the authors of the NELP report point out, this approach is limited by the research available. If there is a lack of research on a particular emergent literacy skill, it is not possible to examine that skill as a predictor. Therefore, practitioners should focus on teaching skills that appear to have functional or causal relationships to later reading acquisition, such as phonological awareness.

EMERGENT LITERACY STANDARDS

Recognition of critical emergent literacy skills has substantial implications for early childhood educational practices. One way the NELP report is likely to influence practice is through the development or revision of states’ early learning guidelines (also called child outcome standards). With encouragement from federal initiatives to improve early childhood education, states began developing early childhood standards that resemble those mandated for K–12 education.

PURPOSEFUL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENT LITERACY SKILLS

This section discusses three primary purposes of early childhood assessment: 1) informing instructional decisions, 2) identifying children who require intensified intervention, and 3) helping educational programs make systematic improvements.

Informing Instructional Decisions

Early childhood educators use assessment data to inform two types of instructional decisions. To plan instruction, teachers assess children’s strengths and needs concerning the classroom curriculum. Once instruction begins, teachers use assessment data to monitor the effect their instruction has on student learning. Progress monitoring via repeated probes of student performance further informs decisions regarding when and how to make instructional adjustments.

Identifying Children Who Require Intensified Intervention

Identifying young children who need additional instructional support occurs through screening and follow-up eligibility testing. Screening involves a brief sampling of the young children’s principal developmental skills to detect possible delays. If potential delays are detected, follow-up assessment is conducted to determine the allocation of intensified intervention. An alternative way to identify children needing intensified intervention has emerged based on response to intervention (RTI) frameworks, which focuses on expanded options for children identified as needing intervention via screening measures.

Helping Programs Make Systematic Improvements

Improving the quality of early childhood educational programs is a fundamental purpose of assessment. The use of assessment data for the formative evaluation of a program’s early literacy curriculum and instruction is essential. Assessments can be used in combination with program-level measures to drive systematic improvements in early childhood education.

EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

This chapter is meant to help early education professionals construct a system of assessment that can address the multiple purposes of assessment. The focus of this system should promote successful outcomes for children and facilitate positive programmatic changes. The findings of the NELP highlight gaps in the availability of suitable assessments; hence, further research and development is necessary.

Recommendations for a System of Assessment

A system of assessment should include measures for universal screening, for instructional planning and progress monitoring, for determining eligibility, and for program improvement.