Research Behind Families Reading Daily

"What's the research say?" is a frequent question asked by administrators. I'm sharing the following review of literature for others to use either as a reference tool for professional development  or as a tool to help with grant writing research. If ever asked what proof do you have daily reading to young children is beneficial now or in their future schooling, you'll be armed with some of the data supporting reading involvement of families.

A Review of Literature on Nightly Reading with Pre-K Students Related to Future Reading Success

Kristine S. Seeman

June 2010

A Review of Literature on Nightly Reading with Pre-K Students Related to Future Reading Success

Introduction

            The ideal bedtime routine for a child is a snack, bath, brushing of teeth, a story, prayers, and a kiss goodnight.  The items listed in this routine are inexpensive (mostly free) and are thought to be beneficial to the well being of a child.  They establish routine, meet the physical & emotional needs of the child, and encourage future habits of cleanliness, reflection and reading.  As a Head Start teacher I cannot guarantee my students are not going to go to bed hungry, clean or even with a kiss.  I can, however, set up part of my curriculum and goals with families to include nightly reading of books from my lending library IF I can shows families the benefits of reading nightly to their young children influences future success. If research does not support nightly reading to young children, then am I merely projecting my views on the children and families that I teach and serve?

Research Problem    

The Early Reading First Program, established in 2002 by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, was created to foster an understanding of the importance of early childhood education and development focusing “especially on the early language, cognitive, and pre-reading skills that prepare children for continued school success and that serve primarily children from low-income families.” Early Reading First’s mission “is to ensure all children enter kindergarten with the necessary language, cognitive, and early reading skills for continued success in school.” (NCLB, 2002)

Several federal programs, such as Early Reading First and Head Start, are in place to help low-income families bridge the literacy gaps faced by their children. There is a statistically probable relation between a child’s language development and parent’s socioeconomic status, as shown in Figure 2. (Halle et al., 2009) The deviation in the first year is less than the second year as an infant’s ability to communicate verbally does not grow rapidly until near the 20-25 month range. Another statistically probable relation exists between a child’s overall cognitive ability and parents’, specifically the mother’s, level of education as shown in Figure 6.(Halle et al, 2009)  By 24 months, the deviation is almost a whole point for infants of mothers without high school education. Lack of education is often associated with poverty and the two can create a cross-generational cycle.

        Early Reading First supports many strategies established by the National Head Start Organization founded in 1965. “Head Start is the most successful, longest-running, national school readiness program in the United States. It provides comprehensive education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services to low-income children and their families.”(NHSA) Head Start and Early Reading First provide standards for educators to decrease the literacy learning gap of students in low socio-economic families. Both programs stress the importance of early reading skills and the difficulty of bridging the literacy gap.

However, neither program explicitly states the importance of nightly reading to children as a possible means to reduce the literacy gap. Head Start sets a foundation for encouraging parental involvement in their child’s education. Nightly reading could be viewed as a form of parental involvement in a child’s education.  Parental involvement is a widely accepted intervention that shows opportunity for growth by students and families. “When schools and families work together to support learning, everyone benefits:

• Students do better in school and in life.
• Parents become empowered.
• Teacher morale improves.
• Schools get better.
• Communities grow stronger.”  National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education (NCPIE) 

Research Question

            Even though reading or reciting of bedtime stories has been a nightly practice for generations, a question remains.  Does nightly reading to children positively affect future reading success?

Terms

Socioeconomic Status (SES): Social rating based on income, education, and occupation.

Young Children:  children ages birth through five years.

Early Literacy:  Any act of reading, active communication, alphabet knowledge skill building, or phonemic practice performed by or with a young child to enhance background knowledge for future reading, writing and spelling skills.

Shared/Joint Book Reading:  The act of reading to or with a young child from a book.

Review of Literature

Many studies focused on the best methods for teachers to instruct young children so as to help eliminate the SES early literacy gap identified by Head Start and other agencies. For the purpose of this review, articles citing best practices for teachers were filed for later review and the focus was placed on the benefits of parent participation in a young child’s education and the benefits of daily shared reading with young children.

It is also important to establish proven background knowledge affirming family and community literacy are related to the literacy outcomes for children as stated in the Results for Year 2 of an Early Reading First Project and multiple other sources. The amount of verbal interaction between adults and children tends to be less in low-income homes than in middle-class homes (Hart & Risley, 2003). Children who have acquired less knowledge and skills with literacy in the preschool years are at greater risk than children who have richer preschool experiences, both at home and in their communities (Snow et al., 1998; Tizard & Hughes, 1984). Language-rich home experiences typically are associated with such activities as book sharing and conversations at meals (Snow & Tabors, 1996).

It is important to acknowledged family literacy as having a causal relationship with children’s early literacy level as stated by known researchers such as Snow & Tabor; however, it is also important to acknowledge the conclusion has not been widely tested as to the extent shared reading experiences have on early literacy development. In the Joint Book Reading Makes for Success in Learning to Read: a Meta-Analysis on Intergenerational Transmission of Literacy 29 studies were reviewed, five of which were unpublished papers included to reduce the possibility of publication biases. The meta-analysis focused on the frequency of joint book reading as well as the effects of SES on the results. Book reading had a moderate effect on emergent literacy skills (.33) and on reading achievement (.41).  Socioeconomic status was found to have a minimal effect of .22 on emergent literacy skills and a medium effect of .5 on reading achievement as noted in table 1. An additional predictor discovered through the meta-analysis but not documented in the table was parents who do not enjoy reading might project the lack of reading enjoyment to their children thus possibly negatively affecting children’s desire to read.  

Table 1.Probabilities of associations between predictors and Effect sizes of book reading

P
Predictor	Reading Achievement	Emergent Literacy Skills	Language Predictor	Overall
Publication year	.06	.04	.001	.0003
Sample size	.40	.32	.007	.22
Publication status	-	-	.28	.48
SES	.50	.22	.33	.47
Design	-	.18	.50	.34
Book reading measure	.41	.33	.34	.39
Age at outcome measurement	.03	.09	.11	.49
Number of subjects (N)'	2,248	1,293	958	3410
Effect Size (d)	.55	.58	.67	.59

Note. Probabilities are one-tailed. Dashes indicate no variation in the predictor. 'Some studies provided data for several outcome measures (Bus, van Ijzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995)

The Executive Summary: Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel summarized the precursors of literacy skills investigated by NELP (2002) under the guidance of the National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL). Laura Westberg, the director of special projects and research at NCFL directed the research by the panel. The National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) financed the work in conjunction with the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the U.S. Department of Education, and the Office of Head Start in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The panel established the following four questions as the focus of their analysis:

1. What are the skills and abilities of young children that predict later reading, writing, or spelling outcomes?

2. Which programs, interventions, and other instructional approaches or procedures have contributed to or inhibited gains in children’s skills and abilities that are linked to later outcomes in reading, writing, or spelling?

3. What environments and settings have contributed to or inhibited gains in children’s skills and abilities that are linked to later outcomes in reading, writing, or spelling?

4. What child characteristics have contributed to or inhibited gains in children’s skills and abilities that are linked to later outcomes in reading, writing, or spelling? (Lonigan & Shanahan, 2009)

The meta-analysis compiled by NELP to answer the four questions showed a wide range of interventions had potential to positively impact children’s early literacy skills and a possible positive effect on their kindergarten/first grade literacy abilities.  The findings demonstrated a relationship between early childhood literacy skills and future reading success, especially in grades K/1. Focusing on book sharing, noted as reading books to children in this study, it appeared this intervention showed significant and moderate effect sizes on children’s print recognition and oral skills. 

Another key part evaluated within the study was home and parent programs.  Parents participated at home by reading books and/or performing targeted early literacy skills they had been instructed how to teach to their children on a daily basis such as letter sounds and naming. Within the home and parent program review, programs appeared to demonstrate moderate to large effect sizes on children’s oral skills and cognitive abilities.

The NELP panel found predictors such as race, SES, and age to be in need of further research as most of the original studies had limitations in reporting. Another area the panel deemed in need of future study was “whether enhanced early instruction aimed at improving skills, such as AK (alphabet knowledge), concepts of print, or oral language development, would consistently lead to higher later attainments in literacy.” (Lonigan & Shanahan, 2009)

               Multiple studies depicted a correlation between poverty, maternal education, and home language spoken to a child’s cognitive, behavioral, and language skills. The connections depicted were intriguing and require further studying but were not beneficial to the review of studies showing a correlation between nightly reading and future reading success. Other studies, such as Preschool: First Findings From the Third Follow-up of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) and Approaching Kindergarten: a Look at Preschoolers in the United States, took a quantitative approach to recording the frequency of reading with a child and compared race, ethnicity, maternal education, home language, etc. but once again not the effects of reading in terms of the child’s reading success. 

Summary

               Even though the studies conducted to show relation between shared readings and future reading success of a child are not as readily accessible as the benefits of Head Start or preschool programs to closing the early literacy gap, they do show moderate effect sizes across all socioeconomic status. Reading to a child is an accepted and scientifically supported means of nurturing future reading skills.

Conclusion

            It appears reading to a child is beneficial regardless of the time of day.  The rich development of vocabulary and background knowledge parents provide for their children through every day conversations, singing, reciting of nursery rhymes/stories, in addition to reading could help close the literacy gap.  Even though I did not find the magic behind bedtime stories, I did discover data to share with families regarding the benefits of reading, singing, and talking with children every day. The long term benefits those daily interactions with young children could include: higher ability to read and write, increased likelihood of high school graduation, and a less likelihood of delinquent behavior.

Keeping the benefits of daily reading with young children in mind, I turn once again to my question, “Am I merely projecting my views on the children and families that I teach and serve?”  I feel confident in sharing the data I discovered along with an emphatic, “Read, read, read!”  One of the best possible ways to help a child become ready for school and future literacy success is by reading together daily, even if it’s the same book every night for a year.

Bibliography

Bus, Adriana G., van Ijzendoorn, Marinus H., & Pellegrini, Anthony D. (Spring, 1995). Joint Book Reading Makes for Success in Learning to Read: A Meta-Analysis on Intergenerational Transmission of Literacy Review of Educational Research, Vol. 65, No. 1 (Spring, 1995), pp. 1-21 Published by: American Educational Research Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170476

Early Reading First (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/earlyreading/index.html)

Halle, T., Forry, N., Hair, E., Perper, K., Wandner, L., Wessel, J., & Vick, J.

(2009). Disparities in Early Learning and Development: Lessons from the Early Childhood

Longitudinal Study – Birth Cohort (ECLS-B). Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by 3.

American Educator, 27(1), 4-9.

Lonigan, Christopher J. & Shanahan, Timothy (2009). Executive Summary--Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy, National Center for Family Literacy.

National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education (NCPIE) “Building Family-School Partnerships That Work” http://www.ncpie.org/  Retrieved June 14, 2010.

National Head Start Association (NHSA) “About NHSA” http://www.nhsa.org/about_nhsa Retrieved June 14, 2010

Smith, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. (1997). The consequences of living in

poverty for children's cognitive and verbal ability and early school achievement. In G.

Duncan and J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor. New York:

Russell Sage Foundation.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998).  “Preventing reading difficulties in young children.” Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Snow, C. E., & Tabors, P. (1996). Intergenerational transfer of literacy. In L. A. Benjamin & J. Lord (Eds.), Family literacy: Directions in research and implications for practice (pp. 7379). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

Tizard, B., & Hughes, M. (1984). “Young Children Learning.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.