Kindergarten Scores, Storytelling, Executive Function, and Motivation Improved through Literacy-Rich Guided Play

Cavanaugh, Dena M.; Clemence, Kimberly J.; Teale, Mikaila M.; Rule, Audrey C.; Montgomery, Sarah E.

doi:10.1007/s10643-016-0832-8

Cited by 33 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rather, guided play, with its adult support and focus on particular learning goal, may offer an optimal pedagogical approach in academic contexts. In domains ranging from STEM [spatial thinking ( Fisher et al, 2013 )] to literacy ( Han et al, 2010 ; Nicolopoulou et al, 2015 ; Hassinger-Das et al, 2016 ; Cavanaugh et al, 2017 ; Toub et al, 2018 ), children perform better in guided play than in free play and equal to or better than in direct instruction (though see Jirout and Klahr, 2012 ). Even studies of causal reasoning in infancy echo this idea.…”

Section: A More Nuanced Definition Of Playmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Might dramatic play be an optimal way for young children to learn socioemotional skills ( Copple and Bredekamp, 2009 ; Goldstein and Lerner, 2017 ; but see Lillard et al, 2013 )? Might guided play lead to stronger outcomes in literacy ( Han et al, 2010 ; Hassinger-Das et al, 2016 ; Cavanaugh et al, 2017 ; Toub et al, 2018 ) and STEM [e.g., spatial thinking ( Fisher et al, 2013 )]? While there are hints in the literature that confirm each of these hypotheses, more work needs to be done.…”

Section: Lessons From the Science Of Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accessing the Inaccessible: Redefining Play as a Spectrum

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Defining play has plagued researchers and philosophers for years. From describing play as an inaccessible concept due to its complexity, to providing checklists of features, the field has struggled with how to conceptualize and operationalize “play.” This theoretical piece reviews the literature about both play and learning and suggests that by viewing play as a spectrum – that ranges from free play (no guidance or support) to guided play and games (including purposeful adult support while maintaining playful elements), we better capture the true essence of play and explain its relationship to learning. Insights from the Science of Learning allow us to better understand why play supports learning across social and academic domains. By changing the lens through which we conceptualize play, we account for previous findings in a cohesive way while also proposing new avenues of exploration for the field to study the role of learning through play across age and context.

show abstract

Section: A More Nuanced Definition Of Playmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lessons From the Science Of Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accessing the Inaccessible: Redefining Play as a Spectrum

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other literacy skills have been increased through opportunities for children to create literacy games. Cavanaugh, Clemence, Teale, Rule, and Montgomery (2017) studied the effect of games on the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessment, which included first‐sound fluency, phonemic awareness components, and oral reading fluency. Two kindergarten classes participated in 15‐minute small‐group sessions for three weeks.…”

Section: Other Aspects Of Literacy and Playmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contribution of Play Experiences in Early Literacy: Expanding the Science of Reading

Rand¹,

Morrow²

2021

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children's experiences in preschool and kindergarten influence their future literacy learning. Although emergent literacy has traditionally been supported by play-based experiences, there has been a decline in play opportunities in recent years. Media publications citing the science of reading have called for more focus on systematic, direct instruction of skills in phonics and phonemic awareness. However, from the perspective of the simple view of reading, the process of learning to read involves developing both decoding and linguistic comprehension skills. In this article, we review the research that has linked play experiences to three areas: (1) the development of language skills necessary for linguistic comprehension, including vocabulary, decontextualized language, and oral narrative competence; (2) opportunities for functional literacy behaviors, including emergent reading and writing behaviors; and (3) skills related to decoding, including print awareness, phonological awareness, word recognition, and reading fluency. The research also has demonstrated the value of adult guidance during play experiences in optimizing literacy learning. This review of the literature linking play and literacy in early childhood expands the scope of the science of reading to include a wider range of skills that support reading development. Children's literacy behaviors in early childhood can predict their successful reading performance in later years (Suggate, Schaugh ency, McAnally, & Reese, 2018). It is imperative, therefore, to examine the science of reading to understand how preschool and kin dergarten practices ensure literacy achievement. Planned time for play has traditionally been considered important for young children. In spite of the research that has shown the benefits of play as it relates to literacy development, the time allotted for play has been reduced and often replaced by teacher directed, skill based lessons (Bassok, Latham, & Rorem, 2016; Miller & Almon, 2009). Emergent literacy methods have been challenged in the media by advocates of more direct instruction of decoding skills (Hanford, 2018;Hood, 2019). They have pointed to the findings of the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) that included support for the importance of teaching phonics and phonemic awareness in a systematic sequence for young children. However, these critics have ignored other findings of the panel that included the importance of fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Since this report, the consensus among researchers has been that a nar row focus on decoding skills discounts the complexity of the science of reading and other important skills (Cabell & Hwang, 2020; Language and Reading Research Consortium, 2015).

show abstract

“…Shapiro & Solity, 2016; Snyder & Golightly, 2017), as do integrated approaches that buttress emerging phonics skills with word solving using context, such as using prompts like “Think of words that might make sense” (Scanlon & Anderson, 2020, p. S23) to help students self‐monitor for accuracy and revise decoding attempts while they develop phonics‐based word identification skills. Finally, opportunities for student‐directed literacy‐rich play can be important (Bredekamp, 2005; Cavanaugh, Clemence, Teale, Rule, & Montgomery, 2017). For instance, when students had the chance to invent their own phonics‐related games and dramatic play with classroom materials, they learned more decoding skills than when participating solely in teacher‐directed activities using those materials (Cavanaugh et al, 2017).…”

Section: What Kinds Of Readers Should Society Raise?mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Matters Most? Toward a Robust and Socially Just Science of Reading

Aukerman¹,

Schuldt²

2021

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science of reading is a term that has been used variously, but its use within research, policy, and the press has tended to share one important commonality: an intensive focus on assessed reading proficiency as the primary goal of reading instruction. Although well intentioned, this focus directs attention toward a problematically narrow slice of reading. In this article, we propose a different framework for the science of reading, one that draws on existing literacy research in ways that could broaden and deepen instruction. The framework proposes, first, that reading education should develop textual dexterity across grade levels in the four literate roles first proposed by Freebody and Luke: code breaker (decodes text), text participant (comprehends text), text user (applies readings of text to accomplish things), and text analyst (critiques text). Second, the framework suggests that reading education should nurture important literate dispositions alongside those textual capacities, dispositions that include reading engagement, motivation, and self‐efficacy. Justification is offered for the focus on textual dexterity and literate dispositions, and we include research‐based suggestions about how reading educators can foster student growth in these areas. Finally, we propose that reading education should attend closely to linguistic, cultural, and individual variation, honoring and leveraging different strengths and perspectives that students bring to and take away from their learning. Reimagining a science of reading based on these principles has the potential to make it both more robust and more socially just, particularly for students from nondominant cultures.

show abstract

Kindergarten Scores, Storytelling, Executive Function, and Motivation Improved through Literacy-Rich Guided Play

Cited by 33 publications

References 12 publications

Accessing the Inaccessible: Redefining Play as a Spectrum

Accessing the Inaccessible: Redefining Play as a Spectrum

The Contribution of Play Experiences in Early Literacy: Expanding the Science of Reading

What Matters Most? Toward a Robust and Socially Just Science of Reading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About