The report under analysis examines the impact of shared-reading practices on children’s literacy skills, including oral language skills, print knowledge, and other aspects. The given report focuses on quantitative measures rather than on qualitative to measure the extent to which the interventions influences toddlers in the course of their intellectual development.
The writers provide a series of studies examining the connection between children’s literacy and shared-reading interventions to define which ones are appropriate for the given study, as well as highlight the most valid studies using relevant variables. Complex and composite measures were involved to compare the studies and outline which ones reflect the actual impact.
Writer’s Understanding of the Report
“
To define that oral language skills are the most appropriate to use to analyze the impact of shared-reading practices, the writers have overviewed a number of related researches. While looking through various perspectives of the study, it has been defined that such variables as phonologic awareness, oral language, print knowledge, and alphabet knowledge are the most frequent ones. By presenting the studies, the authors have introduced calculations and charts presenting numerical data on the results of the study.
The researchers have been consistent in presenting the findings and results of the study. To begin with, the research designs and criteria of the intervention analysis have been clearly identified. In particular, the authors focus on the analysis of randomized control trial and quasiexperimental design with reference to the evaluation of the efficiency of the interventions with the results (Lonigan et al., 2008). Nineteen studies have been presented to highlight the main outcomes of the interventions.
The second stage introduces the identification of the outcome variables that are used to define effect size estimates based on various models. Among 19 studies, 16 papers outlined the impact of interventions on level of oral language studies. The rest of the studies examined other variables mentioned above (Lonigan et al., 2008).
However, the presence of the identified variables does not exclude the possibility of the intervention influencing other children’s literacy skills, which limits significantly the research. Finally, the article enlarges on the results obtained from the study to build the tables and compare the variables.
Personal Interpretations and Observations
In the search for the results and connections, the researchers resort to a great number of calculations and numerical data that distracts from the qualitative results. The latter analysis is much more important because of the actual purpose of the report.
In this respect, the purpose of the report is to define the impact itself of the intervention on children’s literacy rather than the extent and criteria in accordance with which this impact is measured (Lonigan et al., 2008). As a result, the researchers failed to concentrate primarily on the main goals of the studies.
Despite the excess focus on quantitative aspects of research, the analysis of population and age is still important for defining the impact of shared-reading practices on the children’s literacy skills. The detailed presentation of results, as well as explanation of data in tables contributes to the validity and value of the report (Practical implications of the NELP report, 2009). By introducing the scientific findings of the NELP report, it is possible to structure perspectives for future practical implications for developing children’s literacy.
The Main Strengths and Weaknesses of the Report
The main strength of the report lies in detailed account on the effects of shared-reading practices on children’s level of literacy which is seen from different perspectives, including demographics, age risks and other variables.
The study also provides an alternative approach to discussing the actual connection between the intervention and children’s skills, namely print knowledge and oral language skills. More importantly, the researchers have proved that the activity does not have a high effect on the development of specific skills because its narrow focused approach. A one-dimension technique, therefore, will not be effective to children to acquire the necessary skills and abilities.
Despite the statistically supported research, it does not provide the actual purpose and importance of NELP report. The main weakness of the report consists in an ambiguous juxtaposition of facts and scarcity of related researches to make the above-presented conclusions.
Conclusion
The researchers have managed to frame the paper and underline the most important conclusion made from their studies. They have also defined the implications for future research in the field. The conclusions were consistent enough to include a number of findings that were presented in the body of the paper. With regard to the concluding paragraph, the article provides an alternative, one-dimensional outlook on the defined problem.
The limitedness of the research is explained by insufficient presentation of related studies. In particular, the scholars make conclusion based on the researchers they have found, which does not exclude the possibility of the presence of other researchers withdrawing the conclusions. The evidence, therefore, shows that there are many other alternatives of deciding what tools can be used to improve children’s literacy skills.
References
Lonigan, C. J., Shanahan, T., & Cunningham, A. (2008). Impact of Shared-Reading Interventions on Young Children’s Early Literacy Skills. In T. Shanahan, A. Cunningham, K. C. Escamilla, (Eds.) Developing Early Literacy. US: National Institute for Literacy. pp. 152-165.
Practical implications of the NELP report. (2009). Reading Today, 26(4), 10.