Impact of oral language and code-related skills on reading development of language learners

Jacqueline Heller
EDRD 830
December, 2018
Code Related Skills and Oral Language

Purpose

Early literacy skills consist of complex interrelationships among code-related and oral

language skills. There is strong evidence indicating oral language plays a critical role in laying

the foundation for literacy skills but there has been some controversy over the exact relationship

between oral language and literacy development (Wasik & Bond, 2006; Storch & Whitehurst,

2002). Native English speaking children develop English oral language before formal schooling

begins, so after just a couple of years of literacy instruction the relationship between oral

language and reading ability diminishes for monolinguals. However, English language learners

(ELLs) in kindergarten through second grade are developing English oral language skills

concurrently with code related skills. This is a challenging task, and ELLs have a knowledge gap

when compared to their monolingual speaking peers in both depth and breadth of vocabulary and

reading comprehension.

I will present research on the impact of oral language and code-related instruction on the

reading development of ELLs in kindergarten through second grade. I will organize the research

into three themes that emerged in the analysis. First, there is a difference between instruction

needed for monolinguals to make early growth in reading and what ELLs need because oral

language plays a more significant role for ELLs. Next, I will explain the very challenging duty

that sets before teachers who try to support both the code related and oral language growth of the

ELL students in primary grades since it is a complex intertwining of skills and not a clear

continuum of development. Finally I will share the research that supports using good

assessments for multiple purposes so that ELLs are not seen as a homogenous at risk group but

rather students with a variety needs for which instruction can be differentiated. After explaining
Code Related Skills and Oral Language

the three themes that emerged from the analysis I will then detail the methods, discuss the results

and conclude by clarifying limitations and future research directions.

Influence of Oral Language on Reading Diminishes Over Time for Monolinguals

The first theme that emerged from the studies was that oral language development has

both direct and indirect impact on early reading ability and later comprehension for ELLs. They

do not experience that same diminishing impact of oral language on their reading ability that

monolingual students do. In a longitudinal study that followed 626 English speaking children

from preschool through fourth grade, Storch and Whitehurst (2002) found that there was a strong

relationship between oral language and early literacy skills in preschool. However, in

kindergarten through second grade, the effect of oral language was found to be mediated by

skills such as phonological awareness and print knowledge. It is important to note that in this

study phonological awareness, which definitely involves awareness of oral language, was

included with the code-related skills (Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). By third and fourth grade,

language was again important for monolinguals because of its direct relationship with reading

comprehension. These findings are somewhat consistent with research with ELLs (Ford et al.,

2012) although there is much less research available about the role of oral language in ELL

literacy in the primary grades.

While the Nation Reading Panel found 45 experimental studies focused on vocabulary

and 205 on comprehension in 2000, the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children

and Youth found only 3 experimental studies focused on vocabulary in language minorities and

three on comprehension in 2006 (Snow 2006). NELP warned that measures of complex language

are more powerful predictors of later reading than are measures of vocabulary, which is the most

commonly measured language competence. Dickinson, Golinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek (2010)

Code Related Skills and Oral Language

countered the findings in NELP because it did not adequately depict the role of language. They

claim focusing strictly on the size of direct effects, it fails to describe the pervasive impact of

language especially considering the duration of the language effect. Even though teachers know

ELLs must spend time developing oral language Dickinson et al. fear the report may cause some

practitioners to over emphasize code-based factors which develop more rapidly at the expense of

developing linguistic and background knowledge that take more time (Dickinson, Golinkoff &

Hirsh-Pasek, 2010).

Research has shown, for example, that from fall to spring of the kindergarten year, print-

related skills replace phonological awareness skills as more robust predictors of reading

achievement one and two years later. Hispanic ELLs in kindergarten do not represent a

homogeneous group in terms of literacy development and while they need to focus on their oral

language development it may not be appropriate to design literacy instruction based on English

language proficiency alone (Ford et al., 2012). It might be advisable to consider instructing ELL

students with native English speakers who have similar literacy needs rather than segregating

students based on English language proficiency, but then when will they work on oral language?

Clearly, oral language proficiency plays a role in English literacy acquisition, but in the

Ford et al. (2010) study, the early literacy predictor skills such as beginning sound knowledge,

letter sound knowledge, alphabet recognition, phonetic spelling, and concept of word made a

greater contribution. This is consistent with Storch and Whitehurst’s (2002) findings that oral

language development has a strong relationship to emergent literacy skills in preschool, but that

relationship weakens significantly in kindergarten and only becomes important again in third

grade, when reading comprehension becomes the focus of instruction. When Ford et al. (2012)

used cluster analysis to develop models of ELL profiles, it is likely that language proficiency
Code Related Skills and Oral Language

accounted for such a small percentage of the between cluster differences in the study because all

of the children were beginning readers who were not yet encountering the types of texts that

would require highly developed language and vocabulary to ensure comprehension.(Ford et al.,

2012)

. In the later school years that may change. Calderon et al. (2005) studied an intervention

for ELLS that included extensive teaching of vocabulary strategies, direct teaching of

comprehension skills, many opportunities for independent reading using a series of minibooks

containing phonetically decodable texts and children’s literature. In fast-paced 90-minute

lessons, students learned letter sounds, blending, sight words, vocabulary, and comprehension

skills in English. Teachers pretaught vocabulary, developed vocabulary through “text talk,” and

reinforced vocabulary through oral language activities occurring after the story had been read.

Students listened to and discussed children’s 50 books during the year and the experimental

group scored significantly higher than the control group on Word Attack and Passage

Comprehension and moderately higher on Picture Vocabulary while no significant difference

was found between the two groups on the Letter-Word Identification subtest (Calderon et al.,

2005). This supports the idea that ELLs need time for explicit oral language development and

deep discussion around texts.

Literacy Is Already a Complex Intertwining of Skills and Even More So for ELLs

Morris, Bloodgood, Lomax & Perney (2003) developed a sequence of early reading

acquisition in kindergarten and first grade that began with alphabet knowledge and continued to

contextual reading ability in the following order: alphabet knowledge, beginning consonant

awareness, concept of word in text, spelling with beginning and ending consonants, phoneme

segmentation, word recognition, and finally contextual reading ability. While this seems to
Code Related Skills and Oral Language

streamline the very complex process of early literacy acquisition, their participants were 97%

Caucasian monolinguals (Morris, Bloodgood, Lomax & Perney, 2003) and no research was

found to give a similar continuum for ELLs so teachers trying to intensify instruction in order to

close the knowledge gap still have quite a complex task.

It makes sense that good instruction that is both systematic and differentiated is more

likely than poor instruction to help language learners gain literacy skills. Many of the

instructional components that are effective with English speakers also appear to be effective with

ELLs such as enhancing phonological awareness, systematically teaching letter-sound

relationships, and developing print knowledge in meaningful texts (Snow, 2006). However, there

is not clear evidence of how that instruction should look different, if it should at all, in order to

best help language learners catch up to their native English speaking peers. Snow (2006) found

remarkably little about the effectiveness of different aspects of instruction, and the research

reviewed provided little basis for deciding whether or what kinds of accommodations or

adaptations are most helpful to second-language learners. For example second language learners

are more likely to score with native English speakers on measures of word recognition and

spelling, but do not do as well on reading vocabulary and comprehension (Snow, 2006).

Disappointingly, the research reviewed provided few descriptions of strategies or programs that

enhance important reading comprehension skills.

Without clear direction on what works, teachers are trying many approaches and

instructional strategies and many can claim that what they are doing works because by the end of

the year students have made gains. Without further research we do not know the most efficient

way to approach closing the gap between ELLs and their monolingual peers. Helman & Burns

(2008) found teachers could support language learners in any of the following ways:
Code Related Skills and Oral Language

● provide visual support for new words through pictures, objects, or actions

● give students opportunities to hear new words in context and ask questions about

meaning

● connect the oral and written forms of new reading words.

● check frequently for understanding of student comprehension

● create personal readers and do repeated readings on familiar texts such as short poems or

dictated stories

● use picture sorts that compare beginning or ending sounds to support vocabulary

learning, phonemic awareness, and phonics

It takes a great deal of professional background knowledge about text structure and

language in order for teachers to make informed decisions around these choices and scaffold for

language learners to decrease the cognitive load of learning to read while learning the language

at the same time. Teaching literacy is an already complex task and an average teacher would

have trouble simply with text selection if trying to follow Helman and Burns (2008)

recommendations to support ELLs by choosing texts that contain (a) phonetically regular and

high-frequency words, (b) words of high interest to students’ personal lives, (c) words that

represent familiar concepts and images, (d) high word repetition rates, and (e) a low ratio of

unfamiliar words.

The complexity of the task for teachers continues even as ELLs become more proficient

in oral language and reading ability. Once ELLs progress to transitional readers, Hellman &

Burns (2008) suggest further language development activities be integrated into reading lessons

to help ELLs read with expression by focusing on punctuation cues and deepen vocabulary

instruction by delving into the multiple meanings of words and homophones. However, not even
Code Related Skills and Oral Language

veteran teachers have confidence in their ability to support language learners in this way. After

Calderon et al. (2005) concluded their intervention study, the teachers involved reflected that

they would have been unsure of the types of words to focus on if the researchers hadn’t

preselected words and developed lessons around them. Experienced teachers reported it would

have been an insurmountable task to identify vocabulary from the different tiers, sort words into

the appropriate categories, and create a variety of strategies for teaching each word (Calderon et

al., 2005).

There is also a debate about how to keep the balance in balanced literacy when language

learners need to spend time developing oral language which means they may spend less time

than their native English speaking peers in text developing code related skills, but they need that

just as much. Code related skills are easier to teach, while language and background knowledge

take longer to develop. Vocabulary can be acquired and reinforced through student-initiated talk

and active participation during teacher read alouds and some studies suggest that pre-instruction

of vocabulary facilitates vocabulary acquisition and comprehension (Calderon et al., 2005) but

all that time talking about the books being read comes at the expense of time for children to

actually read independently at their instructional level. Developing language has pervasive long

term effects on reading (Dickinson, Golinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek, 2010) but many of those effects

are indirect and in today’s high stakes testing era teachers often focus on what gets measured.

Wasik & Bond (2006) noted dialogic reading, a method of reading picture books and asking

questions that promotes a child’s use of descriptive language, has shown impact in some studies.

However other studies have not found a positive effect, which could be because the amount of

time spent book reading was not sufficient for ELLs to acquire unfamiliar words because
Code Related Skills and Oral Language

children need repeated exposures to learn new vocabulary (Wasik & Bond, 2006). To find the

balance in balanced literacy for ELLS is very difficult especially when their needs are vast.

Lack Good Measures to Predict ELL Reading Difficulty

Research with both monolingual and bilingual populations shows vocabulary is one of

the best predictors of reading comprehension and this is an area of weakness for ELL students

(Paez, Bock & Pizzo, 2011). Only recently has the relationship between vocabulary and early

reading skills among ELLs received attention commensurate with the needs of this growing

population. Not only do we need assessments for content area vocabulary but in the early grades

the process of acquiring a sight word vocabulary may also be a more challenging task for ELLs

as many are less familiar with the vocabulary, syntax, and phonology of English (Calderón et al.,

2005). If students do not have a word in their oral vocabulary, it takes away an anchor for their

word-reading development. (Helman & Burns, 2008). The education community must strive to

find diagnostic assessments for ELL reading comprehension that recognize the sources of their

difficulty may be different than monolingual learners (Snow, 2006)

Hispanic ELL students, for example, are often regarded as a homogeneous at-risk group,

characterized simply by limited English proficiency. However, Ford, Cabell, Konold and

Invernizzi (2012) found Hispanic ELL students exhibit the same variance in early literacy skills

as native English-speaking students. If such variance exists, then using accurate assessments to

inform instruction, monitor and compare student performance and identify students for special

services could lead to improved literacy instruction and better learning outcomes for Hispanic

ELL students (Ford et al., 2012).

Although research done on monolingual students often emphasizes the impact of

phonological skills on reading development, research on the importance of phonological

Code Related Skills and Oral Language

awareness, alphabet knowledge, and orthographic knowledge as predictors of successful English

literacy development for Hispanic ELL students suggests that multiple measures are better than

single measures and the predictive power of these measures shifts over time from phonological

awareness to print-related skills (Ford et al., 2012). Multiple studies cited by Lindsey, Manis &

Bailey, (2003) confirmed this by demonstrating that phonological awareness is only one of

several skills that are predictive of reading difficulties in early elementary school such as

Scarborough’s finding that letter identification had a mean correlation of .59 with later reading

scores. Clay’s Concepts About Print was a strong predictor with a mean correlation of .53 with

later reading, and Scanlon & Vellutino who studied multiple kindergarten variables found once

letter identification was entered into the equation, very little additional variance was accounted

for by phonological and linguistic variables. While there are a plethora of assessments available,

a common theme among the literature reviewed was that it is still unclear which assessments best

predict ELL literacy difficulties in the early years of elementary school.

Underlying all these factors is the fact that English literacy is mediated by an ELL

student’s native language abilities at the time the child begins to acquire English yet often times

the assessments used with ELL students in English immersion programs only give information

on their scores in English and do not take into account transfer of skills from their native

language. Lindsey, Manis & Bailey (2003) determined how print knowledge, expressive

language, phonological awareness, and rapid naming of objects administered in Spanish in

kindergarten could identify children at risk for reading difficulties in English at the end of first

grade with the idea that children can be assessed at least 1 year earlier in their native language

than they can in English and then get additional support if needed (Lindsey, Manis & Bailey,

2003). Print knowledge was the strongest single predictor, explaining 19 % of the variance in
Code Related Skills and Oral Language

letter-word identification; however, each of the other variables also explained a statistically

significant portion of the variance.

Ford et al. used kindergarten ELL assessments to create profiles that fell into four

clusters. Students in Cluster 1 scored high overall and students in Cluster 4 scored low overall

but Cluster 2 had average phonological awareness with alphabet knowledge approximately one-

half of a standard deviation above the mean while Cluster 3 also had average phonological

awareness but demonstrated a weakness in alphabet knowledge (one-half to one standard

deviation below the mean). The overall effect size for language was very small with language

proficiency accounting for less than 1.0 % of the differences between clusters (Ford et al., 2012).

While children in both Cluster 2 and 3 had adequate phonological awareness skills in fall of

kindergarten the cluster with stronger orthographic skills performed significantly better on the

first-grade outcome measures. When considering how to assess ELLs this suggests that

phonological awareness is important, but phonological awareness in the absence of orthographic

skills may not be sufficient in building a foundation in early reading (Ford et al., 2012).

Methods

Article Search

The first group of articles was collected through a convenience sample of selected

readings from EDRD 830 Theory, Research and Practice in Literacy: Birth through Middle

Childhood. Three weeks of the syllabus were considered on the topics of print knowledge,

prediction of reading, and oral language instruction and intervention. Only articles that focused

on instruction in the primary grades were included so those that pertained to preschool, home or

family impact, or teacher professional development were excluded. The selected articles were

used for the literature review to frame the issue and begin to develop themes.
Code Related Skills and Oral Language

Additional studies for the synthesis were obtained through footnote chasing, citation

searches and database searches. The initial database searches through EBSCO and Psychinfo

using the terms “print knowledge” and “oral language” and “language learners” yielded a large

number of options. The search was later constrained by “primary”, “instruction” and

“intervention.” Another search was done changing “print knowledge” to “code related” with the

other key words remaining the same.

Inclusionary/exclusionary criteria

Articles from the database searches were only considered if they were empirical, had

been published in peer reviewed journals in the last fifteen years (since 2003), and took place in

school settings in kindergarten through 2nd grade. Qualitative work, meta-analyses and

dissertations were excluded. Studies involved normally developing students who were English

language learners so those students learning languages other than English language were

excluded as were those that focused on children with language delays or disabilities.This yielded

a small number of acceptable studies so I then increased the time span back an additional three

years to include articles published since 2000.

Coding

The studies were evaluated through the use of a rating system and code sheet. Several

factors were considered and weighted. The primary purpose of the code sheet was to track

internal and external validity. To evaluate internal validity each study’s description of conditions,

measures, and reliability were coded with one point given for each consideration for a maximum

possible score of six. Evaluations of external validity were based on the inclusion of study

rationale and hypotheses, participant selection, and demographic information. Again one point

was given for each consideration for a maximum possible score of eight.The final category of
Code Related Skills and Oral Language

points was given for the study’s adherence to a balanced literacy program. This synthesis

attempts to discover the impact of oral language and code related skills on literacy development

of ELLs in the primary grades but many of the studies only focused on one or the other area, not

the interrelation of the two. For this category a study could receive one point for low focus, two

points for moderate focus or three points for high focus for for each of three considerations: oral

language development, code-related skills, and authentic reading. Authentic reading was added

after reviewing several studies that did not include any type of instruction or intervention but

merely assessed longitudinally to determine predictors of later reading difficulties and some of

the assessments used do not reflect actual literacy skills but rather skills in isolation.

Analysis

Ultimately eight studies were found to meet the constraints placed on inclusion and were

coded and analyzed. This is a smaller number of studies than anticipated, but it represents the

studies that can best summarize the field of applicable research. Table 1 provides an overview of

the analysis including the tallied score for each study for internal and external validity and

balanced literacy. It is interesting that such a wide variety of statistical procedures were

employed including factor analysis, regression analysis, cluster analysis, correlation analysis,

path analysis, and structural equation modeling.

Results and Discussion

The number of children who participated in these studies ranged from 43 to 2,351 but

excluding those two extremes the average number of participants in the other six studies was

n=281.These numbers mean there is potential to generalize the results but because this synthesis

is considering language learners it is important to look at the demographics. Seven of the eight

studies included populations that were primarily races other than Caucasian and half of the
Code Related Skills and Oral Language

studies focused on Spanish speakers. The locales were dispersed across North Carolina, Virginia,

New York, Texas and two studies that simply referred to their region as northeast or midwest.

All of the studies described participants as low socioeconomic status either due to family

income, qualifying for Head Start, or a free or reduced lunch program. This is of particular note

given the topic being studied because many children raised in poverty have limited opportunities

to develop language and preliteracy skills through interactions with adults and peers who use

language in ways consistent with the majority culture. Children of middle-class well-educated

parents have two to three times as many opportunities to converse with their parents as low-

income children (Wasik & Bond, 2006) so socioeconomic status is a major consideration when

studies are analyzing the oral language development of children in the early years of school.

Half of the more recent studies show lower internal validity not because they used

measures that were not valid but because they were longitudinal studies that did not employ a

control group so several of the components of the internal validity score were not applicable to

them. This shift towards longitudinal studies may come from a newer understanding about how

oral language and code related skills impact early reading compared to later comprehension.

Surprisingly no studies scored high in both internal and external validity. In fact the only

study that got a high score on internal validity was Wasik and Bond (2006) but as mentioned

earlier the longitudinal studies that did not track a specific intervention had several consideration

within this category that were not applicable which kept their scores low.

Limitations

The research data reviewed appeared in peer reviewed journals and related to literacy

outcomes for English language learners but other data relevant to the issue could also be found in

anthropological or linguistic work and present different perspectives (Snow, 2006). Another
Code Related Skills and Oral Language

limitation of this synthesis is the small number of studies examined. I purposefully excluded

studies that focused primarily on family connection to developing oral language and chose

instead to only review instructional implications but the more I understand the early and later

impact of oral language as well as the impact of native language proficiency on ELL’s English

literacy development the more I see the limitation of excluding those studies. It is possible that a

wider view of the extant literature would provide a more comprehensive synthesis.

Future Research

The same societal, familial and individual factors that affect literacy for monolinguals

also impact second language learners such as socioeconomic status, parental education and

literacy level, stable communities, high teacher expectations, school readiness skills and

phonological processing (Snow, 2006). While the research studied here helps to explain the

connection between oral language and code related skills we must remember that ELLS are a

heterogeneous group and continue to investigate not just how these two factors correlate and

impact reading achievement but also how they are related to these other variable. The research

done on monolinguals greatly outweighs that of emerging bilingual, or ELL students so further

adaptations of previous studies on early literacy development must be done with this population

to check generalizability.

There is also a cultural factor of motivation to succeed socially and academically in a

second language setting. Snow (2006) found that to be one of the factors with the greatest impact

on literacy acquisition in addition to background knowledge and comprehension strategies

(Snow, 2006) so further research must be done in this area.

A third need is more longitudinal research that provides information on the sustainability

of the effectiveness of early intervention programs (Fischel & Landry, 2008). Much of the
Code Related Skills and Oral Language

research presented here showed that oral language and code related skills impact literacy

development to a different degree at different stages of development but since oral language has

so many indirect effects on literacy, more longitudinal studies need to go beyond the primary

years.

Conclusion

In summary, individual differences in code-related and oral language skills are

powerfully connected to differences in reading achievement in elementary school. The

implication of this for educational policy is that investing resources to improve both code-related

and oral language skills for may enhance reading achievement in ELL students. Future efforts to

prevent reading difficulties need to follow the developmental relationships between code-related

skills, oral language, and reading achievement, and the changing nature of reading during the

course of the elementary school years.

Code Related Skills and Oral Language

Table 1

Oral Period of
Author & & Int Ext Data Descriptive
Year Key focus Results Print Val Val N Collection statistics
K print knowledge & phonological
Oral language and awareness primarily determine early
Storch & code related reading. By upper grades accuracy & Structural
Whitehurst precursors to comprehension separate & influenced Mod Mod High K-4th equation
(2002) reading by different skills 4/6 4/6 8/8 626 grade modeling
Morris, Structural
Bloodgood, Developmental Phoneme awareness & concept of word equation
Lomax & steps in learning to develop in phases in early readers in Mod Mod High K-1st modeling, path
Perney (2003) read kindergarten and 1st grade 3/6 4/6 8/8 102 grade analysis
Phonological awareness transferred from
Spanish to English predicts word
identification skills. Oral language
predicts comprehension better than word Correlation
Lindsey, Manis Prediction of skills. Predictive accuracy for good and analysis,
& Bailey reading for poor bilingual readers comparable to Mod Mod High K-1st regression
(2003) Spanish ELs literature on monolinguals 3/6 4/6 8/8 249 grade analysis
Experimental group scored higher on
Word Attack (+0.21), Passage
Calderon et al. Vocabulary and Comprehension (+0.16) & Picture High Mod Mod Matched
(2005) ELs Vocabulary (+0.11) but not Word Ident. 5/6 4/6 6/8 293 3rd grade control design
PD on teacher Head Start teachers trained in book
Wasik & Bond language in book reading and conversation led to student Low High Mod d=.73 receptive
(2006) reading growth in vocabulary 2/6 5/6 5/8 207 PreK language
Significant relationship between English d=1.84, .65 &
Helman & ELs, oral language proficiency and acquisition rates of Mod Mod Mod .96 for 3
Burns (2008) and sight words English sight words for ELL students. 3/6 3/6 5/8 43 2nd grade groups
Spanish-speaking ELL students scored
Ford, Cabell, lower across all measures so literacy
Konold, instruction must be differentiated to meet
Invernizzi & Profiles of Spanish individual needs. Two profiles with
Gartland speaking greater success had stronger performance Low Mod High K-3rd Cluster
(2012) kindergarteners on orthographic skills. 2/6 4/6 8/8 2351 grade analysis
K-2nd,
Mancilla- Comprehension for Word based skills predicted 5th grade
Martinez & Spanish speaking comprehension but language based skills Mod Mod Mod 5th & 8th
Lesaux (2017) ELs impacted 8th grade comprehension 4/6 3/6 6/8 148 grades Factor analysis
Code Related Skills and Oral Language

References
Alexander, P.A. & Fox, E. (2004). Theoretical models and processes of reading. (5th ed.) A
historical perspective on reading research and practice. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association (33-68).
Calderon, M., August, D., Slavin, R., Duran, D., Madden, N. & Cheung, A. (2005). Bringing
words to life in classrooms with English-language learners. In E. Herbert & M. Kamil
(Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum, 115-136.
Dickinson. D. K., Golinkoff, R.M., Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2010). Speaking out for language: Why
language is central to reading development. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 305-310.
Fischel, J. & Landry, S. (2008). Impact of language enhancement interventions on young
children’s early literacy skills. Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early
Literacy Panel, 238-258.
Ford, K.L., Cabell, S. Q., Konold, T., Invernizzi, M. & Gartland, L. B. (2012). Diversity among
Spanish-speaking English language learners: Profiles of early literacy skills in
kindergarten. Reading and Writing, 26, 889-912.
Helman, L. & Burns, M. (2008). What does oral language have to do with it? Helping young
English-language learners acquire a sight word vocabulary. The Reading Teacher,
62(1), 14-19.
Lesaux, N. & Geva, E. (2006) Synthesis: Development of literacy in language minority students.
In D. Agusut & T. Shanihan (Eds.) Developing literacy in second-language learners:
Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority children and youth.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 53-74.
Lindsey, K.A., Manis, F. R. & Bailey, C. E. (2003). Prediction of first-grade reading in Spanish-
speaking English language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 482-494.
Lonigan, C.J. (2006). Development, assessment, and promotion of preliteracy skills. Early
Education and Development, 17(1), 91-114.
Morris, D.J., Bloodgood, J.W., Lomax, R.G. & Perney, J. (2003). Developmental steps in
learning to read: A longitudinal study in kindergarten and first grade. Reading Research
Quarterly. 38(3), 302-328.
Code Related Skills and Oral Language

Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux (2017) Early indicators of later English reading comprehension
outcomes among children from Spanish-speaking homes. Scientific Studies of Reading,
21(5), 428-448.
Paez, M. M., Bock, K. P., & Pizzo, L. (2011) Supporting he language and early literacy skills of
English language learners: Effective practices and future directions. In Neuman, S. B. &
Dickinson, D. K. Handbook of early literacy research. New York, NY:The Guilford
Press, 136-152.
Piasta, S.B. & Wagner, R.K. (2010). Developing early literacy skills: A meta-analysis of
alphabet learning and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 8-38.
Rhyner, P.M., Haebig, E.K. & West, K.M. (2009). Emergent literacy and language
development: Promoting learning in early childhood. Chapter 1: Understanding
frameworks for the emergent literacy stage. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Ruddell, R.B. & Ruddell, M. R. (1994). Theoretical models of processes of reading. (4th ed.).
Chapter 5: Language acquisition and literacy processes. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association (83-103).
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.
Wasik, B. A. & Bond, M. A. (2006). The effects of a language and literacy intervention on Head
Start children and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology. 98(1). 63-74.
Snow, C. (2006). Cross cutting themes and future research directions. In D. August, & T.
Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners (pp. 631-651).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Code Related Skills and Oral Language

Appendix A: Code sheet adapted from Troia (1999)

Article citation
____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Notes Key focus

Results

N = participants

Data collection period

Effect size/descriptive statistics

Balanced Literacy (/6) Oral language skills
0= low
1= moderate Code related skills
2= high
Authentic reading (deep/wide)
Internal Validity (/6) Random assignment
0=no
Control group exposed to materials
1=yes
Treatment conditions explicitly described

Equivalent instructional time

Operationalized measures

Reliability of measures

External Validity (/8) Rationale for study

0=no
Participation selection
1=yes
Age

Grade

Gender

Race

SES

Locale

Themes and connections to other studies

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________