oral language and phonological developmentmason.gmu.edu/~mmcilwai/portfolio/artifacts/edrd...

Oral Language and Phonological Awareness

Running head: ORAL LANGUAGE AND PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS


Mary Jane McIlwain

EDRD 830, Dr. White

George Mason University

1


Oral Language and Phonological Development

A mother is playing with her two year old son during a family dinner. She smiles and

says, “Say bulldozer.” The boy giggles and croaks his way of saying the word, “buwdoswa”.

The mom, “Say it again, but don’t say dozer.” He proudly responds, “Buw!”

This two year old boy just displayed his awareness of syllables in this particular word.

He could do this with bulldozer, but not with cowboy. He could manipulate the syllables of a

few of the words he used often—the vocabulary that he had built up in his receptive register and

could express in a consistent way. The mother continues to read, play word games, and talk with

the child as he grows to three, four, and five years old. At this point in time there are a great

many words he can orally break into syllables because they have become a part of his language.

Several scholars have found vocabulary to be predictive of success in phonological

training in preschool years (Kuo & Anderson, 2006; Lonigan, 2007). Furthermore, both

phonological awareness and phonemic awareness has been shown to be precursors to successful

reading acquisition (Phillips & Torgesen, 2006). A great many programs and studies are now

suggesting that we begin explicitly teaching phonological awareness early because the task can

be trained beginning in early childhood education environments and because many children are

already developing these skills during the preschool years (Burgess, Hecht, & Lonigan, 2002;

Jordan, Snow, & Porche, 2000; Lonigan, Anthony, Bloomfield, Dyer, & Samwel, 1999; Lonigan

et al., 2003; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Whitehurst et al., 1999) .

This view has been setting many academic research agendas around phonological

awareness; and its ultimate level, phonemic awareness, has made its way into many classrooms

and homes with varying degrees of success. Isolating the phonological awareness as the

quickest route to reading acquisition has generated a somewhat linear take on reading

2


acquisition. Additionally, this environment has invited a deficit model approach intended to

close the achievement gap through phonological training via high quality preschool programs

and family literacy interventions. However, opening the research lens to view a wider role of

oral language might create a different definition for reading acquisition and decoding altogether.

It seems that we may not be seeking to understand the role of oral language in light of

two significant possibilities. First, children may reach that watershed moment when their

linguistic and metalinguistic skills allow for phonological awareness to develop at different times

within the early childhood period. Second, oral language may play a more significant role in

decoding than is being quantified in the current research. The review will first discuss children’s

development of metalinguistic awareness, with particular attention being given to the construct

of phonological awareness and its connection to reading acquisition and development. Next, the

paper will explore oral language development in children. Finally, the review will conclude by

advocating for a more culturally responsive agenda in research and practice.

Metalinguistic Awareness, Phonological Awareness and Reading Development

Metalinguistic Awareness and Phonological Awareness

Metalinguistic awareness is the ability to attend to and monitor the use of various

linguistic components (phonemes, morphemes, syntax, semantics) in addition to considering the

meaning of the particular communicative act (Chaney, 1994; Roth, Speece, Cooper, & De La

Paz, 1996). It would seem that a more varied the use of language structures, vocabulary and

semantics would benefit a child in all forms of communication by offering a flexible use of

language receptively and expressively. It could also be that this awareness of the flexible nature

of language is dependent on time and exposure to language and on their attentional control

(Akhtar, Jipson, & Callanan, 2001; Behrend, Scofield, & Kleinknecht, 2001; Biemiller, 2006).

3


Therefore, it would follow that the development of metalinguistic skills is initially based on

exposure to language and cognitive control of attention and at some point the relationship

between oral language and metalinguistic awareness becomes reciprocal. An important aspect of

this theory, however, is to realize that much of this could be true without print, without reading

instruction. It could be that children are naturally developing these skills in the context of their

homes, communities, and schools when their attention and purpose is to learn about their world.

Some research studies and reviews have suggested that the multifaceted and

developmental nature metalinguistic awareness involves various language and cognitive

complexities (Chaney, 1994; Roth, Speece, Cooper, & De La Paz, 1996) and that this is also true

for phonological awareness in particular (Anthony et al., 2002). There is a present debate

questioning the nature of rhyme and syllable awareness as compared to phoneme awareness.

Earlier studies grappled with the thought that phonemic awareness and rhyming abilities

developed in separate domains, and that phonemic awareness should be in training programs

during emergent literacy experiences at school and at home (Phillips & Torgesen, 2006). Recent

studies have angled toward the idea that phonological awareness is a single construct with

varying levels of linguistic and cognitive complexity, much the same way all other metalinguistic

abilities may develop. More specifically, the simple to complex aspects of phonological

awareness involve a spiraling progression of sensitivity to words, syllables, rhyme, and

phonemes. Furthermore, the timing of this progression could also depend on cognitive growth

(Anthony & Lonigan, 2004; Anthony et al., 2002; Lonigan, 2006, , 2007) and therefore should

be treated as a developmental skill. Finally, Lonigan (2007) also determined that general

language abilities and vocabulary, rather than receptive and expressive vocabulary alone, have a

causal relationship with the development of phonological awareness.

4


It is believed that empirical support for a single, developmental construct for phonological

awareness and its direct relationship with oral language is now surfacing for two reasons First,

more sophisticated statistical analysis has led to more intricate models (Anthony & Lonigan,

2004; Lonigan, 2007). Second, recent studies have focused on children in the formative years,

before formal reading instruction begins (Burgess, 2006).

The move to study children before formal reading instruction has allowed researchers to

tap into the field of oral language research and uncover some interesting and causal relations

between vocabulary and phonological awareness. Lonigan (2007) has considered a line of

thought that recognizes that children with highly developed levels of phonemic awareness have

reached this height, not so much do to drilling, but more due to language and attentional control.

In fact, Lonigan (2007) demonstrated through reanalysis of previous data that effective

vocabulary impacted phonological awareness, rather than the other way around. Another step in

the direction of upacking role of language and metalinguistics has shown that syntax and

semantics create the context for vocabulary growth in children (Behrend, Scofield, &

Kleinknecht, 2001; Biemiller, 2006).

Phonological Awareness and Its Relationship to Reading Development

Metalinguistic skills are related to both reading acquisition and reading development

(Chaney, 1994; Kuo & Anderson, 2006; Roth, Speece, Cooper, & De La Paz, 1996); however,

the “unpacking” of this relationship has been seen as problematic in the current research (Kuo &

Anderson, 2006). The relationship between metalinguistics and reading seems relatively linear.

For example, in order for children to understand the purpose of a letter and a letter sound, they

must have the ability to control two concepts. First, oral language consists of words which are

made up of sounds (phonological awareness). Second, the words and phrases we use orally can

5


be represented in print (print awareness). It is understandable why research focused a great deal

on these two principles (Anthony & Lonigan, 2004; Burgess, 2006; Lonigan, 2006; Phillips &

Torgesen, 2006; Speece, Ritchey, Cooper, Roth, & Schatschneider, 2004).

Earlier studies revealed the causal relationship between phonological awareness and

reading acquisition, and more specifically, decoding (Phillips & Torgesen, 2006; Roth, Speece,

Cooper, & De La Paz, 1996; Speece, Ritchey, Cooper, Roth, & Schatschneider, 2004; Storch &

Whitehurst, 2002; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Conceptual models developed over the past

decade have included the inside-out and outside-in view of reading acquisition and development,

as well as the “bottleneck theory.” The inside out outside in conceptual model for reading

acquisition and development was originally proposed by Whitehurst and Lonigan (1998). This

model defined two domains for reading skills. Inside out skills consisted of code related tenets,

such as phonological awareness and letter knowledge. Outside in skills consisted of language and

conceptual knowledge. The authors believed that these domains were stand alone entities that

were not impacted by the same experiences. Moreover, it was proposed that, although outside in

skills may be tied to emergent literacy components, these skills did not provide significant

influence until after the acquisition stage was completed. The inside out skills were more

important during the acquisition stage, which was considered to be kindergarten, first and second

grades. (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). These findings were extended by a subsequent study that

found these emergent literacy characteristics (oral language and concept knowledge) became

increasingly important as reading developed in children.

The “bottleneck” theory is similar to the above model. This conceptual framework states

that phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and letter knowledge are of the most

importance during the acquisition stage. Therefore the wide space of emergent literacy narrows

6


to code related skills in order to begin processing text (Roth, Speece, Cooper, & De La Paz,

1996; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). The world reopens as the children transition out of the bottle

and into the world of fluent reading. Finally, it is at this point that syntactic, semantic, and

discourse abilities facilitate continued reading development. Phillips and Torgesen (2006)

findings coincided with this metaphor in that they found the syntactic and semantic cues aided

students in decoding, but only after the students attained a high level of phonemic awareness.

These conceptual models were developed in the late 1990s during the time that many

studies involving phonological awareness and reading acquisition were conducted on school age

children. The foundation of both models is based on the idea that phonological skills emerge

from formal reading instruction (i.e. once letters and sounds are explicitly taught in school). The

move to study younger children has shown that the relationship between phonological awareness

and reading is not as bidirectional as once thought; but, rather, there is a foundational tie between

oral vocabulary and phonological awareness (Burgess, 2006) which begins to come together

during the toddler years. Lonigan (2006) revisited the inside out outside in construct given the

new understandings related to phonological awareness and language. He considered the idea that

the two domains are not necessarily independent of common experiences, as once thought. They

may be tied together through listening comprehension, understanding syntax, and definitional

vocabulary. In fact, a study situated at the preschool level which did not involve any

phonological training revealed that there was causal relationship between vocabulary and

phonological development. Additionally, this relationship exists during the preschool years and

into the early elementary years (Lonigan, 2007).

A Summary of Metalinguistic Awareness, Phonological Awareness, and Reading

7


Dickenson (2006) captures a great deal of the findings related to metalinguistic awareness

and reading acquisition and development discussed to this point through a window metaphor. His

focus was specifically directed toward vocabulary development and it relationship with the

phonological aspects of metalinguistics. He conceptualized that a window is open for this

learning from preschool through fourth grade. During this time a child’s environment is critical

in that it helps form the brain functions that allow for attentional control and higher cognitive

functioning. Language is a key factor in this environment because it allows for the continuous

development in attention and cognitive functioning, which together eventually define that

watershed moment when metalinguistic awareness begins to form. Finally, it is this awareness

that creates the connections between print and language.

It is important to note that the relationship between phonological awareness and reading

actually begins before formal literacy instruction (the explicit teaching of letters, sounds, and

sight words). Moreover, a unique contributor to the timing of the onset of metalinguistic

awareness has been found to be oral vocabulary development rather than the explicit drilling of

the various levels of phonological awareness and letter sounds. The research in the fields of

metalinguistic awareness, cognition, literacy, and language have all contributed to a clearer

understanding of the processes involved in becoming literate. Clearer understandings of how

literacy develops is beginning to move us away from the linear conception of literacy and

language is somewhat contextualized by the earlier conceptual models of reading acquisition and

research projects. More recent studies and more sophisticated statistical modeling are leading

some to a more systems view of reading acquisition and development (Dickinson, McCabe, &

Essex, 2006).

8


Oral Language Development

The research on oral language development has been critical to our understanding of

literacy acquisition and development. Much of the research is beyond the scope of this review.

Therefore, this section is organized to revisit many of the previous studies cited, but using the

lens of the socio-cultural and sociolinguistic factors that impact language development in

preschool through elementary level classrooms. First, however, we will take a brief look at the

various aspects of oral language.

Vocabulary, Syntax, and Semantics

Much of the aforementioned research has started to tie phonological awareness to

vocabulary (Anthony & Lonigan, 2004; Biemiller, 2006; Bracken, 2005; Burgess & Lonigan,

1998; Dickinson, McCabe, & Essex, 2006) and definitional vocabulary (Lonigan, 2007).

Scholars in the field of literacy are still looking to explain ways that syntax and semantics help

vocabulary and more in depth concept development in children; and more specifically, they are

studying how story book reading lends itself to this development (Pan, Rowe, Singer, & Snow,

2005; , "Pathways to Reading: The Role of Oral Language in the Transition to Reading", 2005;

Storch & Whitehurst, 2001), How does a child internalize a word or fact about the world?

Fast mapping is a concept of word acquisition first framed by Susan Carey in 1978. She

proposed that to learn a word a child must its syntactical properties and how the meaning relates

to other words and concepts already known. Initial word learning consists of direct modeling

and over teaching at the infant and early toddler stage. However, by the age of two a child a child

learns words based on their use in linguistic context and the specific situation that surrounds its

use (Carey, 1978). This system is further explained by noting a word to world path that is

created through syntax and social engagement which allow the word to be internalized and

9


extended (Behrend, Scofield, & Kleinknecht, 2001). Yet another path for word learning is less

direct involves overhearing words (Akhtar, Jipson, & Callanan, 2001). The various paths can be

described as expressive, receptive, passive, explicit, and or coincidental. However, it is important

to note that they all involve linguistic and social contexts.

Sociolinguist and Sociocultural Dimensions to Language Learning

The context in which language is learned involves an interaction between a child and

another person and a specific linguistic structure. These relationships and structures are different

between and among various ethnic, socioeconomic, and family cultures (Craig, Connor, &

Washington, 2003; Fillmore & Snow, 2003). However, the language characteristics of the

middle and upper class cultures are those that successfully transfer to literacy in English in the

American public schools (Fillmore, 2000; Fillmore & Snow, 2003). As a result, many family

literacy projects and research studies have sought to influence or manipulate the language

experiences in the homes of at risk children (Jordan, Snow, & Porche, 2000; Landry & Smith,

2007; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Pan, Rowe, Singer, & Snow, 2005) and their preschool

classrooms (Lonigan et al., 2003; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Phillips & Torgesen, 2006).

Most of these studies and interventions involve the traditional use of storybooks, which do

provide substantial linguistic and social contexts within which to learn language.

However, reading stories in and of itself is not enough to enhance language learning.

Attention and varied purposes and words play a role as well (Pan, Rowe, Singer, & Snow, 2005).

Moreover, some studies show that the perceived lag in language does not show until children

reach a more formal educational stage in late preschool or kindergarten (Chaney, 1994; Thomas-

Tate, Washington, Craig, & Packard, 2006). Thus, it could be assumed that all children come to

us with language and experiences that could be tapped for literacy learning. It is noted by some

10


scholars and policy makers that researchers and practicing teachers need to find a way to teach

literacy in English in ways that do not marginalize the languages and cultures the children have

been learning throughout their formative years (Feldman, 2002; Fillmore, 2000; Fillmore &

Snow, 2003).

A Summary of Oral Language Development

It is particularly important to value and extend the language the children bring with them

in any setting, whether that setting is in the home or in a school. In order for children to continue

developing vocabulary and conceptual knowledge of their world, they need to be able to connect

the new to the known. They do this through their syntactic and pragmatic abilities as they relate

to another caring individual. Storybook reading helps to create this linguistic and social context

in some cultures, but it is important to note that oral language is primarily developed through

purposeful and varied use of words and grammatical structures to learn about the world.

This premise is particularly important as it pertains to phonological awareness and

literacy acquisition and development. Vocabulary has been found to be causally related to

phonological awareness. Additionally, a more recent construct of phonological awareness

acknowledges that its development is dependent on various cognitive abilities that are dependent

on language (Anthony & Lonigan, 2004), and these come together at different times for different

children.

Therefore, it is possible that a five year old from a Spanish speaking home may still be

developing the attentional control and vocabulary necessary to reach a metalinguistic intersection

that would take him to print. What happens to this child when he is forced to adapt to a new

linguistic and cultural context for language learning that does not match the one that supported

him during his formative years?

11


Culturally Responsive Teaching and Research

Movement along the Continuum from Intervention to Prevention to Convention

The link between phonological awareness and reading acquisition has been well

established(Ashby & Rayner, 2006; Burgess & Lonigan, 1998). Some studies use a somewhat

linear model to develop intervention studies designed to ensue at risk populations the

phonological awareness necessary to acquire literacy successfully before they entered

kindergarten or first grade (Ashby & Rayner, 2006; Burgess, Hecht, & Lonigan, 2002; Jordan,

Snow, & Porche, 2000; Lonigan, Anthony, Bloomfield, Dyer, & Samwel, 1999) Many of these

models use storybook reading and other forms of exposure to print in the interventions.

However, more recent studies have taken a systems view of language and literacy

development that embraces a more defined developmental view of literacy and language

(Anthony & Lonigan, 2004; Dickinson, McCabe, & Essex, 2006; Lonigan, 2006, , 2007). It is

noted that the window for vocabulary and phonological learning is open from age four through

fourth grade. If this is true, then it would follow that the perceived language lag for some

preschool children may not be able to be closed by the time they are school age.

Many studies note the timing of metalinguistic awareness and print awareness varies

from child to child. On the other hand, several studies referred to what they called the stable

nature of phonological awareness as the sign that early intervention is necessary (Burgess, 2006;

Lonigan, Burgess, Anthony, & Barker, 1998). The child’s environment, whether home or

school, is critical in his language and literacy development. The child’s home culture may be

well on its way to providing the important cognitive and language foundations. However the

guarantee of continued progress in these tenets could be dependent on the classroom culture and

the bridge between home and school. Therefore, it also could be that the perceived stable nature

12


of phonological awareness is more due to the teaching practices than it is to the theory of

metalinguistics itself.

The window for learning remains open through fourth grade. Perhaps, finding ways to

allow the u nature of learning experienced by some cultures becomes the convention for all

children. This would require more knowledge about how various cultures engage in language

learning so classrooms could connect to those strengths in the children.

This paper opened with a scenario the author knew well. It was a description of her

experiences with her child, which did lead to successful literacy acquisition and development. It

would be interesting to be able to close with another scenario that described an alternative path to

success in school. However, no such path is known by the author at this time. The recent studies

have led us to a more clearly defined conceptual understanding of the relationship between oral

language and literacy acquisition. The next step may be discovering the different paths that could

be forged between the different linguistic and cultural backgrounds and phonological awareness

and reading.

13


References

Akhtar, N., Jipson, J., & Callanan, M. A. (2001). Learning Words through Overhearing. Child

Development, 72(2), 416-430.

Anthony, J. L., & Lonigan, C. J. (2004). The Nature of Phonological Awareness: Converging

Evidence from Four Studies of Preschool and Early Grade School Children. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 96(1), 53-55.

Anthony, J. L., Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B. M., & Cantor, B. G.

(2002). Structure of Preschool Phonological Sensitivity: Overlapping Sensitivity to

Rhyme, Words, Syllables, and Phonemes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,

82(1), 65-92.

Ashby, J., & Rayner, K. (2006). Literacy development: Insights from research on skilled reading.

In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (Vol.

2, pp. 52-63). New York: Guilford Press.

Behrend, D. A., Scofield, J., & Kleinknecht, E. E. (2001). Beyond Fast Mapping: Young

Children's Extensions of Novel Words and Novel Facts. Developmental Psychology,

37(5), 698-705.

Biemiller, A. (2006). Vocabulary development and instruction: A prerequistie for school

learning. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy

research (Vol. 2, pp. 41-51). New York: Guilford Press.

Bracken, S. S. (2005). The Role of Oral Language Revisited: A Comment on the NICHD Early

Child Care Research Network (2005). Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 998-999.

14


Burgess, S. R. (2006). The development of phonological sensitivity. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B.

Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (Vol. 2, pp. 90-100). New York:

Guilford Press.

Burgess, S. R., Hecht, S. A., & Lonigan, C. J. (2002). Relations of the Home Literacy

Environment (HLE) to the Development of Reading-Related Abilities: A One-Year

Longitudinal Study. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(4), 408-426.

Burgess, S. R., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Bidirectional Relations of Phonological Sensitivity and

Prereading Abilities: Evidence from a Preschool Sample. Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 70(2), 117-141.

Carey, S. (1978). The Child as a Word Learner. In M. Hale, J. Bresnan & G. A. Miller (Eds.),

Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality

(pp. 264-291). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Chaney, C. (1994). Language Development, Metalinguistic Awareness, and Emergent Literary

Skills of 3-Year-Old Children in Relation to Social Class (No. 15

01427164).

Craig, H. K., Connor, C. M., & Washington, J. A. (2003). Early Positive Predictors of Later

Reading Comprehension for African American Students: A Preliminary Investigation.

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34(1), 31-43.

Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., & Essex, M. J. (2006). A window of opportunity we must open to

all: the case for prschool with high-quality support for langauge and literacy. In D. K.

Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of ealry literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 11-

28). New York: Guilford Press.

15


Feldman, S. (2002). Preparing teachers to guide children's language development. In C. T. E.

Adger, C. Snow & D. E. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know about language

(pp. 113-122). US

Washington D. C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Fillmore, L. W. (2000). Loss of Family Languages: Should Educators be Concerned? Theory

into Practice, 39(4), 203-210.

Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. (2003). What Teachers Need To Know about Language. In C. T. E.

Adger, C. Snow & D. E. Christian (Eds.), What Teachers Need to Know about Language.

U.S.

District of Columbia: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Jordan, G. E., Snow, C. E., & Porche, M. V. (2000). Project EASE: The Effect of a Family

Literacy Project on Kindergarten Students' Early Literacy Skills. Reading Research

Quarterly, 35(4), 524-546.

Kuo, L.-j., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphological Awareness and Learning to Read: A Cross-

Language Perspective, Educational Psychologist (Vol. 41, pp. 161-180).

Landry, S. H., & Smith, K. E. (2007). Parents' Support of Children's Language Provides Support

for Later Reading Competence. In R. K. E. Wagner, A. E. E. Muse & K. R. E.

Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary Acquisition Implications for Reading Comprehension

(pp. 32-51). New York: Guilford Press.

Lonigan, C. J. (2006). Conceptualizing phonological processing skills in prereaders. In D. K.

Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (Vol. 2, pp. 77-

89). New York: Guilford Press.

16


Lonigan, C. J. (2007). Vocabulary development and the development of phonological awareness

skills in preschool children. In R. K. E. Wagner, A. E. E. Muse & K. R. E. Tannenbaum

(Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 15-31). New

York: Guilford Press.

Lonigan, C. J., Anthony, J. L., Bloomfield, B. G., Dyer, S. M., & Samwel, C. S. (1999). Effects

of Two Shared-Reading Interventions on Emergent Literacy Skills of At-Risk

Preschoolers. Journal of Early Intervention, 22(4), 306-322.

Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., Anthony, J. L., & Barker, T. A. (1998). Development of

Phonological Sensitivity in 2- to 5-Year- Old Children. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 90(2), 294-311.

Lonigan, C. J., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B. M., Cantor, B. G., Anthony, J. L., & Goldstein, H.

(2003). A Computer-Assisted Instruction Phonological Sensitivity Program for Preschool

Children At-Risk for Reading Problems. Journal of Early Intervention, 25(4), 248-262.

Lonigan, C. J., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative Efficacy of Parent and Teacher Involvement

in a Shared-Reading Intervention for Preschool Children from Low-Income

Backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(2), 263-290.

Pan, B. A., Rowe, M. L., Singer, J. D., & Snow, C. E. (2005). Maternal Correlates of Growth in

Toddler Vocabulary Production in Low-Income Families. Child Development, 76(4),

763-782.

Pathways to Reading: The Role of Oral Language in the Transition to Reading. (2005).

Developmental Psychology, 41(2), 428-442.

17


Phillips, B. M., & Torgesen, J. K. (2006). Phonemic awareness and reading: Beyond the growth

of initial reading accuracy. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of

Early Literacy Research (Vol. 2, pp. 100-112). New York: Guilford Press.

Roth, F. P., Speece, D. L., Cooper, D. H., & De La Paz, S. (1996). Unresolved mysteries: How

do metalinguistic and narrative skills connect with early reading? Journal of Special

Education, 30(3), 257-277.

Speece, D. L., Ritchey, K. D., Cooper, D. H., Roth, F. P., & Schatschneider, C. (2004). Growth

in Early Reading Skills from Kindergarten to Third Grade. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 29(3), 312-332.

Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2001). The Role of Family and Home in the Literacy

Development of Children from Low-Income Backgrounds. New Directions for Child and

Adolescent Development(92), 53-71.

Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral Language and Code-Related Precursors to

Reading: Evidence from a Longitudinal Structural Model. Developmental Psychology,

38(6), 934-947.

Thomas-Tate, S., Washington, J., Craig, H., & Packard, M. (2006). Performance of African

American Preschool and Kindergarten Students on the Expressive Vocabulary Test.

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37(2), 143-149.

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child Development and Emergent Literacy. Child

Development, 69(3), 848-872.

Whitehurst, G. J., Zevenbergen, A. A., Crone, D. A., Schultz, M. D., Velting, O. N., & Fischel, J.

E. (1999). Outcomes of an Emergent Literacy Intervention From Head Start Through

Second Grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 261-272.

18

Oral Language and Phonological Awareness 19

oral language and phonological developmentmason.gmu.edu/~mmcilwai/portfolio/artifacts/edrd...

Documents