Facilitating emergent literacy skills: a literature-based, multiple intelligence approach.

Abstract. Educators have continually sought to achieve a balance between a phonics-based, code-emphasis program and a more holistic, meaning-based approach to emergent literacy instruction. This article describes an integrated phonics and literature-based approach to developing children's emergent literacy skills. These skills included alphabet knowledge, phonemic awareness, phonics and nonsense word competence, and language usage. Using Howard Gardner's (1983) theory of multiple intelligence, the program's literacy activities addressed children's interpersonal, intrapersonal, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, linguistic, musical, naturalistic, and visual-spatial abilities and interests. Stories from children's trade books were told in a variety of storytelling methods, such as draw talk, character imagery, felt board, group role play, and chant. These approaches were matched to children's interests and multiple intelligence areas. All of the storytelling sessions were followed by related activities that incorporated the children's emergent literacy skills. Results from this study of 13 inner-city children indicated that this integrated, seven-week program resulted in significant gains in phonemic awareness, nonsense word competence, and word usage fluency. The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) was used as a pretest and a posttest to assess children's initial and later competence on the basic emergent literacy skills. Implications for further research on this integrated approach are discussed.

**********

Children who are at risk for reading failure manifest many common early characteristics or warning signs. Recent research studies indicate that phonemic awareness and letter knowledge are highly correlated with later reading accuracy and fluency (Adams, 1990; Chall, 1967, 1983). Other important skills that may predict later reading success or failure include those that fall under the oral language category. These oral language skills include such aspects as vocabulary knowledge, grammatical understanding and usage, and story retelling skills (Torgesen, 2004). Most children who enter school at risk for difficulties with learning to read manifest difficulties in both more specific phonological and print-related domain, as well as in the broader oral language knowledge domain (Torgesen, 2004). For students at risk, the primary goals should be in phonological awareness, alphabetic principle, and accuracy and fluency with connected text (Chall, 1983; Good & Kaminski, 2002). Children who are at risk for later school difficulties require specialized support in their acquisition of these early literacy skills in order to make adequate progress in formal reading.

One form of effective specialized services includes systematic and regular intervention using a sound/symbol (code-emphasis) program (Chall, 1967, 1983). Another contrasting, yet potentially complementary, form of specialized support draws from Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence (Armstrong, 2003; Gardner, 1983). According to Gardner (1983), a blending of the eight areas of multiple intelligence must be present for significant learning to occur. Clay (1991) reinforced the theory of connecting one type of learning with another, stating that "meaning is the most important source of information" (p. 292). When a systematic, phonics-based approach is combined with a meaning and literature-based, multiple intelligence approach, children are afforded opportunities to make emotional connections to the texts and activities. Such connections facilitate children's attention span, memory, processing skills, and comprehension (Armstrong, 2003; Brand & Donato, 2001a).

Multiple intelligence theory is gaining widespread recognition as a useful approach to ensuring that the diverse needs of all children are addressed in curricular planning and implementing. As educators plan literacy strategies for normally functioning and at-risk emerging readers, Gardner's theory provides guidelines to them as they shape the content and activities in individualized, stimulating, and custom-tailored ways. As Stewart (2004) noted, "Teaching reading--or teaching anything, for that matter--is more than science alone; it is also an art." Kamii and Manning (2005), alluding to the comprehensive nature of literacy acquisition, added that, for learners, "reading and writing are not mere behaviors or skills. Children's behaviors in reading and writing are manifestations of their knowledge."

Gardner's multiple intelligence theory sheds rich implications for children's learning in eight different areas: visual-spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, musical, linguistic, naturalistic, logical-mathematical, and bodily-kinesthetic. Emergent literacy teaching, which in the past primarily addressed language, or linguistic learning, now benefits more diverse learners by enlisting this wide array of multiple intelligences.

The authors present a literature-based program of instruction for the preschool and primary grades that integrates the eight areas of multiple intelligence with systematic and structured, yet creative, key emergent literacy activities. In this literature-based instructional program, children's trade book stories are told using a variety of methods that integrate all of the eight areas of multiple intelligence. Specifically, the storytelling methods include chant (enlisting musical and linguistic intelligence); felt board and draw talk (enlisting visual-spatial, mathematical, and naturalistic intelligences); pantomime and character imagery (enlisting bodily-kinesthetic and naturalistic intelligences); group role play (enlisting intrapersonal, interpersonal, and musical intelligences); and puppetry (enlisting visual-spatial and bodily-kinesthetic intelligences). These stories, told by the teacher and often accompanied by the children, are used as the foundation upon which sequential and systematic phonics activities are based. In addition, reading, writing, listening, speaking, and problem-solving activities are integrated into the multiple intelligence activities as related extensions for each story.

The multiple intelligence/storytelling approach is recommended for children at risk for learning difficulties because of its multisensory nature and its ability to pique the interest and incorporate the active participation of all children. When the children's limbic system is activated through storytelling and emotionally meaningful activities, they are better prepared to tackle the more abstract tasks of successful emergent literacy, such as learning the alphabet letters, decoding nonsense words, separating words into phonemes, and producing rich, descriptive sentences (Armstrong, 2003; Brand & Donato, 2001a; Gardner, 1983).

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses related to children's acquisition of selected emergent literacy skills were fundamental to the present study:

1. Children who receive small-group, literature-based multiple intelligence training will score significantly higher on a measure of Letter Naming Fluency than will an untreated comparison group.

2. Children who receive small-group, literature-based multiple intelligence training will score significantly higher on a measure of Phoneme Segmentation Fluency than will an untreated comparison group.

3. Children who receive small-group, literature-based, multiple intelligence training will score significantly higher on a measure of Nonsense Word Fluency than will an untreated comparison group.

4. Children who receive small-group, literature-based, multiple intelligence training will score significantly higher on a measure of Word Use Fluency than will an untreated comparison group.

Methodology

Subjects

The literacy study enrolled a total of 13 kindergarten children from an inner-city charter school. This school was selected because of its high enrollment of children from multicultural backgrounds and their predominantly low socioeconomic status. Children from economically disadvantaged households are more often at risk for later reading failure (Hart & Risley, 1995; Hecht, Burgess, Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashott, 2000). The students ranged in age from five years, one month to seven years. By gender, six girls and seven boys constituted the study. The subjects included children of Hispanic, black, Asian, and white ethnic backgrounds. Specifically, four children were white, three were black, three were Hispanic, two were East Indian, and one was Asian. The students were considered at risk because of the district's ratings on standardized tests of achievement and because of the children's socioeconomic status. The regular classroom teacher used homogeneous groups for daily literacy instruction. For purposes of regular classroom instruction, five children made up the highest performing group, five children made up the middle level group, and three children made up the lowest performing group. Each group was approximately equally made up of students of a variety of ethnic backgrounds. The classroom teacher grouped the children for daily literacy instruction into one of the three groups in the fall, based upon their academic performances in emergent literacy and their informal test scores.

Procedures

The 13 children were pretested on the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) during the first two weeks of January. The investigator met with each child individually in a private room and administered the four winter kindergarten screening tests. The testing time was approximately 15 minutes per child for the pretesting and about 20 minutes per child for the posttesting. Assessment of all 13 youngsters occurred during the two weeks just prior to the implementation of the program (pretesting), and during one week just after the cessation of the program (posttesting).

The study, which transpired over a 10-week period, included seven weeks of direct small-group instruction to the 13 experimental children. All of the 15 children in the class were selected for the study, with the exception of the two lowest performing children. These children received special individualized services from the school's reading specialist during the same times that the groups met for the present study.

Two mornings each week, for seven weeks, the investigator met with the homogeneously grouped kindergarten students from the aforementioned groups in a private room near their classroom. The groups, which met for 40 minutes per session, were approximately equally divided between boys and girls. The investigator met with the three different groups on a time-rotated basis in order to ensure that the children were not excluded from the same, regular classroom activities each day that their small group met.

Using the results of the pretesting for the 13 experimental children, the investigator created a multisensory, literature-based, yet systematic and goal-oriented, literacy program. Each week, the investigator introduced emergent literacy activities, including alphabet awareness, phonemic awareness, phonics (including nonsense words), and language fluency. The investigator also reviewed the concepts and skills addressed in the previous week(s) during the next week's group sessions. Multiple intelligence-based learning activities were created for the children in each group. These activities were based upon results of a teacher questionnaire regarding the multiple intelligence/interest areas of each child in the study. The teacher was asked to provide narrative, descriptive information about each child's 1) interests and strengths, 2) family and ethnic background, and 3) emergent literacy level. As another measure of the children's multiple intelligence, the investigator individually administered an abbreviated version of the Multiple Intelligence Survey (Brand & Donato, 2001b) to the students. These individual and collective profiles, including the multiple intelligence/interest areas, shaped the instructional program and its level of difficulty used by the investigator for the seven weeks of small-group instruction. The investigator selected instructional strategies incorporating multiple intelligence and interest areas that were moderate to high for each group of students. For example, in order to accommodate the interests of three children in one group who scored high in the linguistic and musical areas, the investigator planned and implemented activities that involved a predominance of singing, rhyming, and chanting. To meet the needs of two visual-spatial learners and one bodily-kinesthetic learner in another group, children colored and followed maps of characters and story events. These maps were secured in proper sequence onto the floor, a task that appealed to the logical-mathematical learners. As children followed the maps, on foot, they retold the events of the stories. Naturalistic learners brought story props from outdoors, such as acorns or leaves, into the class. One intrapersonal learner in a group was encouraged to work independently on some of the activities, while four interpersonal learners in the same group enjoyed collaborating with others in creating extended sentences, story retelling, and problem solving. The levels of initial ability varied widely for the three groups; therefore, the investigator adapted activities in each group to meet the levels of the students while still integrating the appropriate multiple intelligence activities.

All 15 children in the classroom participated in a short vowel musical activity and a large-group storytelling session prior to the smaller group sessions. The purposes of the music and the storytelling activities were twofold: 1) they provided a stimulating, multisensory, and personalized means of introducing the children to vowel and consonant sounds using all of the eight multiple intelligence areas; and 2) they provided a frame of reference upon which many of the later weekly activities were based. Specifically, week-by-week activities are designated below:

Week One of the treatment involved the children's singing the short vowel sound of "a" heard in "cat" (musical learning), and engaging in storytelling and creative drama using the trade book by Wanda Gag, Millions of Cats (1928/1996) (linguistic, kinesthetic, and naturalistic learning). Next, the investigator helped the children as they identified and matched sight words on a word wall (visual-spatial, linguistic). Children used pictures of nouns and verbs in oral sentences that they created (visual-spatial learning) about cats and other elements of the Millions of Cats story. The investigator counted and recorded the words the children used in their sentences. The children were encouraged to count along with the investigator (mathematical intelligence), to stretch the length of their sentences, and to create more descriptive and meaningful sentences. The children practiced rhyming words and beginning sounds of words (linguistic learning).

Week Two of the treatment involved a review of the sound of short "a" and a musical introduction of the vowel sound of short "e," heard in "red" (musical learning). Dress-up (character imagery) storytelling, using the trade book Strega Nona by de Paola (1997) (bodily-kinesthetic/interpersonal learning), further reinforced the short sound of "e." The children practiced letter matching and letter identification activities using story-based letter and word wheels (linguistic intelligence) at the midweek sessions. Nonsense word games (interpersonal and linguistic learning) and phonemic segmentation games (interpersonal learning) were practiced at the end-of-the-week sessions. Individual dry-erase boards, using word families and nonsense word practice, addressed visual-spatial and bodily-kinesthetic learning through stimulating games.

Week Three of the treatment involved a musical and oral review of the sounds of short "a" and short "e" as well as a musical introduction to the sound of short "i" (musical and linguistic learning). The investigator dressed as a large fish and told the story of Big Al (Clements, 1997), using the dress-up (character imagery) storytelling method (interpersonal, linguistic, and bodily-kinesthetic learning). Later that day and in the next literacy session, the children used kinesthetic and linguistic learning as they fished for magnetic words (higher functioning groups) and letters (lower functioning groups) in fishing pails. The children used each word they "caught" in an oral sentence and each letter they "caught" in a word. The children in the highest functioning group combined their sentences to dictate a nautical story. The investigator recorded the children's story on chart paper; the children reread the story together with the investigator and then independently.

Another activity that addressed both visual-spatial learning and vowel sounds/ nonsense words involved the use of felt pieces and a felt board. The investigator adapted the classic trade book It Looked Like Spilt Milk (Shaw, 1947/1989), and constructed 15 felt pieces. All of the white felt objects contained the sound of short "i." The felt pieces were placed on a blue background and the children retold the story using the new "clouds" in the blue sky. For example, when the picture of a pig was placed on the felt board, the children used the word "pig" in a descriptive, elongated sentence. Next, they suggested real and nonsense words that rhymed with pig, such as big, fig, jig, and mig, thereby developing their phonemic awareness. The next child in the group found a felt piece depicting another word that had a short "i" sound, such as "king," and placed it onto the felt board. This child used the word "king" in a descriptive sentence, added some nonsense and actual rhyming words for "king," and selected the next child.

Week Four of the treatment involved a musical and oral review of the sounds of short "a," short "e," short "i," and a musical introduction to the sound of short "o" (musical and linguistic learning). The investigator and the children enacted and sang parts of a musical story titled Horse and Frog (adapted from Wolkstein, 1993), a traditional multicultural story, in order to emphasize the sound of short "o" as heard in "frog" (musical learning). The children played a short "o" frog matching game (kinesthetic, interpersonal, naturalistic, and linguistic learning). They rewrote the story of Horse and Frog, supplying the missing onsets, rimes, beginning and ending blends, and words, to complete the story, which was previously printed on large chart paper (kinesthetic and linguistic learning). They circled all the short "o" words on the chart and underlined selected consonants and blends (consonant clusters) at the beginnings and ends of the words (kinesthetic and linguistic learning). They constructed their own "Frog Trains" and placed real and nonsense words printed onto frog shapes into train cars, specifically designated with the vowels (a, e, i, o) they were practicing (kinesthetic, intrapersonal, and linguistic learning).

Week Five of the treatment involved a musical and oral review of the four vowel sounds introduced thus far: "a," "e," "i," and "o" (musical learning). The short "u" vowel was reinforced in the felt board story told by the investigator, The Very Hungry Caterpillar (Carle, 1994) (intrapersonal, logical-mathematical, and linguistic learning). After orally participating in the felt board storytelling, the children independently retold the story, using elongated, descriptive sentences. Again, they supplied the missing words, consonants, vowels, and punctuation marks in a chart story based upon the trade book they had heard. They read aloud and illustrated a rewritten Very Hungry Caterpillar book (spatial, mathematical, naturalistic, intrapersonal, and linguistic learning). Continuing the theme of insects and animals, the children read, sang, and illustrated books from the traditional song titled "I Know an Old Lady" (Westcott, 2003) (musical, kinesthetic, and linguistic learning). They sorted large pictures of animals with accompanying printed sounds, arranging the pictures from smallest to largest, according to the story sequence (logical-mathematical learning). They learned to read and pronounce the sounds of the various animals and insects in the story/song (naturalistic learning). The children also were introduced to blends (consonant clusters) and long sounds of vowels (linguistic learning) in the animal names and related sounds. This oral practice with animal sounds and names reinforced the students' phonemic awareness.

Week Six of the treatment involved reviewing consonant sounds and reviewing the short vowel sounds and words containing them. The investigator told a story, Harold and the Purple Crayon (Johnson, 1981), using the Draw Talk method of storytelling (visual-spatial, linguistic, and intrapersonal learning). The children created their own related books based upon Harold's adventures, titled Oh, the Places We Go! The stories were collected into a large class book, photocopied, and sent home to be read to/with their parents (intrapersonal, interpersonal, naturalistic, and linguistic learning). The children practiced sight words and used them in sentences. They practiced writing nonsense words on dry-erase boards, using strategies advocated by Patricia Cunningham (2005). They used nouns, verbs, and prepositions in elongated sentences related to the story about Harold's adventures. They identified words, alphabet letters, vowels, and vowel sounds in their stories and in the stories of others.

Week Seven of the treatment involved the investigator dressing up to tell the story of Dandelion (Freeman, 1977). Dandelion is a lion who learns to accept and love himself just as he is, in spite of his less than perfect appearance. The children participated in the storytelling by joining in with the teller at the appropriate times in the story (interpersonal, intrapersonal, bodily-kinesthetic, and linguistic learning). Later in the week, as a culminating activity, the children read, colored and, to the amazement and delight of all, collectively and fluently read a related I Love You rhyming book (Marzollo & MacDonald, 2000) to the entire school during Meeting Time.

Measures

The program's goals of enhancing children's emergent literacy skills of alphabet awareness, phonemic awareness, phonics, and language skills merged well with the four skill areas targeted by the four winter/ spring kindergarten level diagnostic tools in the DIBELS Screening Package. The DIBELS subtests have shown excellent convergent and predictive validity. Children's performance on the DIBELS has been found to be strongly related to their performance on other well-established measures of reading skills, as well as standardized tests of reading achievement and teachers' ratings of reading ability (Elliott, Lee, & Tollefson, 2001; Hintze, Ryan, & Stoner, 2003). Students' kindergarten performance on the DIBELS tests were strongly related to their performance in 1st grade on numerous indices of reading skills, including the Woodcock-Johnson-Revised scales, the CBM Oral Reading Fluency, and the DIBELS itself (Good, 2006; Haager & Gersten, 2004; Speece, Mills, Ritchey, & Hillman, 2003). The DIBELS has been found to be valid and useful for screening students who are at risk for reading failure, diagnosing reading difficulties, monitoring student progress, and assessing the outcomes of reading interventions (Coyne & Harn, 2006). In the 2005-2006 school year, the DIBELS was used in more than 10,000 schools (Good, 2006). The diagnostic tools that were used in the present study include Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF), and Word Use Fluency (WUF).

Initial analyses examined the reliability and validity of the DIBELS subscales in the present sample. Test-retest reliability was assessed in the present sample by computing the correlation between DIBELS tests that were administered before and after students participated in the literacy intervention--an interval between tests of seven weeks. High levels of test-retest reliability were found for the tests of Letter Naming Fluency (r = .85), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (r = .84), and Nonsense Word Fluency (r = .76). Low levels of test-retest reliability were found for the test of Word Use Fluency (r = .11), but this low correlation reflects the strong effect of the intervention on students with low initial scores on Word Use Fluency. To assess the validity in the present sample, we examined the correlation between students' initial DIBELS scores and their teacher's averaging and classifying of students' workbook performances, their sight words, and their oral reading and emerging reading abilities (1 = Below grade level; 2 = Meets grade level; 3 = Above grade level). The teacher classified students prior to the administration of the DIBELS test. Strong relationships were found between the teacher's ratings of students' workbook, sight words, and oral reading abilities and the DIBELS tests of Letter Naming Fluency (r = .77), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (r = .61), Nonsense Word Fluency (r = .68), and Word Use Fluency (r = .51). These findings suggest that the DIBELS scales had adequate levels of reliability and validity in the present study, and are consistent with findings in the broader literature on the psychometric properties of this measure.

Individual interviews with children, as well as written teacher reports and a Multiple Intelligence Survey (Brand & Donato, 2001b), constituted the additional pre-assessments for the study. The teacher reports included open-ended answers to questions on a form designed by the investigator. The teacher reported the child's academic level according to his/her literacy performance and the results of informal testing; she also provided information about the child's interests, learning style, and familial background. The Multiple Intelligence Survey is a 40-item questionnaire that is administered orally to each student. Representative questions include, "Do you like to play with other children?" and "Do you like to take walks outdoors?" A score is obtained for each student in each of the eight multiple intelligence areas, indicating his/her areas of particular strength and interest.

The following is a description of each of the four standardized, individually administered DIBELS subtests that were used for the present study:

Letter Naming Fluency (LNF). Students were presented with a page of large-font uppercase and lowercase letters, randomly arranged. They are asked to name as many letters as possible. The investigator used a stopwatch to determine how many letters each child called correctly within one minute. The highest possible number of points on this subtest is 110. Students in kindergarten through fall of 1st grade are considered at risk for poor reading outcomes if they scored in the lowest 20 percent of a school district using local norms. Those who scored between the 20th and the 40th percentile were considered to be at some risk (Good & Kaminski, 2002). Illustratively, in the normative sample reported by Good, Wallin, Simmons, Kamenui, and Kaminski (2002), kindergarten students with a score of 14 or less during winter testing would be considered at risk, while those with scores between 15 and 27 would be considered at some risk.

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF). This test involves the student's ability to orally segment three- and four-phoneme words. The investigator pronounced a word for the child. The child was asked to verbally produce each individual phoneme, or sound, of the word. For example, the investigator said, "ship." The child, responding correctly, said, "/sh/ /i/ /p/," thereby earning the highest possible score of three (3) for this word and its three phonemes. The total score earned by the child is determined by the number of correct phonemes produced in one minute. The highest total of possible points on this subtest is 72. The benchmark goal for this subtest is 35 to 45 correct phonemes per minute in the spring (approximately May) of the kindergarten year (Good & Kaminski, 2002).

Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF). This test assesses the alphabetic principle, which includes the child's letter-sound correspondence and ability to blend letters into words (Kaminski & Good, 1996). The investigator allowed the child one minute to produce as many letter sounds as he/ she could. The final score on this subtest is the number of letter sounds produced correctly in one minute. Some of the nonsense words included, for example, "juj," "zoz," and "tam." The child could either say the word in its entirety or produce the separate sounds of each of the word's letters. Students with a higher degree of alphabetic fluency, who could pronounce words in their entirety, scored higher on this subtest, since more time was involved in recognizing and producing isolated letter sounds. Each group of two or three letters or each two- or three-letter nonsense word, correctly pronounced, earned the student the corresponding number of points. The total possible number of nonsense words on this subtest is 50; the total possible points on this subtest is 144. Benchmark expectations have been established for 1st-grade students. Students are expected to achieve 50 correct letter sounds by mid-1st grade; those who score below 30 in mid-1st grade require intensive and systematic scaffolding in order to achieve 1st-grade reading goals (Good & Kaminski, 2002).

Word Use Fluency (WUF). Additional research is needed to establish the linkage of word use fluency to other primary correlates of early literacy acquisition and later reading success (Good & Kaminski, 2002). However, research indicates that story retelling skills, as well as syntax and semantics, or grammatical and vocabulary understanding and usage, are important indicators of later reading success (Torgesen, 2004). Students who fall in the lowest 20 percent of a school district using local norms are considered at risk for poor language and reading outcomes. Students who fall between the 20th and 40th percentiles are considered at some risk (Good & Kaminski, 2002). Because the Word Use Fluency test is considered to be an experimental measure, national norms are not reported by Good et al. (2002).

Results

The main hypotheses of the present study predicted that students who were exposed to the multiple intelligence-based literacy intervention would show greater gains on the DIBELS subtests between pre- and posttests, compared with students who did not participate in the intervention. In order to assess the impact of the intervention on students' emergent literacy skills, the investigator examined gains exhibited by the treatment group on the DIBELS tests between the pretest and posttest. These scores were compared with gains that would be expected based on norms for the kindergarten students in larger, normative samples who took these tests in the winter and spring. Winter and spring norms for kindergarten students on the Letter Naming Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, and the Nonsense Word Fluency were obtained from Good et al. (2002). The Good et al. (2002) paper provides normative data from all of the schools that entered scores into the DIBELS database during the 2001-2002 school year. This sample includes approximately 39,000 kindergarten students who took the DIBELS between December and February and a similar number of students who took the DIBELS between March and May of that school year. Because the Word Use Fluency test is regarded as an experimental measure by the authors of the DIBELS, norms are not provided for this test in the Good et al. (2002) paper. However, Haager and Gersten (2004) reported average scores on the Word Use Fluency test for the winter and spring of the kindergarten school year. These investigators administered the Word Use Fluency test to a sample of 389 kindergarten students who attended schools serving low-income, inner-city populations. This sample may provide a suitable match to the predominantly low-income, inner-city students who participated in the present emergent literacy intervention.

In order to test the significance of pretest to posttest gains in the treatment group, the investigator tested the null hypothesis that these gains were equal to those that would be expected over a seven-week interval in untreated subjects. Under the null hypothesis, the expected change would be equal to the mean spring minus the mean winter score in the normative comparison samples of Good et al. (2002) and Haager and Gersten (2004), prorating these differences to reflect the fact that the pretest and posttest were seven weeks apart. Table 1 shows the winter and spring norms for the DIBELS tests. In order to assess the likelihood that the sample in the present study was drawn from a population in which the population parameters reflected normative change in the DIBELS scores, it was necessary to compute a standard error for the difference in scores between the pre- and posttests. This was accomplished by utilizing the formula for computing the t statistic with dependent groups. In order to obtain a more stable estimate of the population parameters, the sample standard deviations reported in Good et al. (2002) and Haager and Gersten (2004) were applied to compute the standard error of the difference between pre- and posttest scores.

Table 2 shows the pretest and posttest scores for the treatment group on the four DIBELS tests that were administered. In this table, the column titled "Observed Difference" shows the difference between the pretest score and the posttest score for the treatment group. The next column to the right, titled "Expected Difference," shows the change that would be expected between pre- and posttest, based on statistics from the larger normative sample. For each DIBELS test, the t-values assess the likelihood that the treatment sample was drawn from a population in which the difference between the pre- and the posttest was equal to that predicted by normative trends. On three of the four DIBELS tests that were administered, changes from pretest to posttest were significantly higher in the treatment group than would be expected based on normative change. Illustratively, scores on the Phoneme Segmentation test increased by 20.69 points in the treatment group, compared with a predicted change of only 6.90, based on normative trends. The amount of change in the treatment group was 13.79 points higher than would be expected by normative change, a difference that is significant at p < .001 with 12 degrees of freedom. Significant and substantial changes also were found for the Nonsense Word Fluency test, t(12) = 2.91, p < .05, and the Word Use Fluency test, t(12) = 6.63, p < .001. By contrast with these findings, gains on the Letter Naming Fluency test were not significantly higher than gains that would be expected based on normative trends. Overall, three of the four hypotheses of the present study were supported.

Discussion

The main finding of the present study is that students who were exposed to a multiple intelligence-based emergent literacy program during kindergarten exhibited significant gains in skills that are critical for their later success as readers. Three out of the four hypotheses were supported by the findings of the present study. Students exhibited significant gains on measures of Phonological Awareness, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Word Use Fluency. While students exhibited higher scores from pre- to posttests in Letter Naming Fluency, these differences were not significantly greater than would be expected from normative growth trends. Students' emergent literacy skills were increased by embedding skill and concept building exercises in the context of literature, storytelling, and activities that were based upon the eight multiple intelligence areas of Howard Gardner (1983). The teacher surveys and Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences were used in two ways. First, instruction that incorporated children's interests and needs, within the group, was provided to address their areas of strength and weakness indicated on the initial teacher surveys. Second, the common literacy curriculum, taught to all students, included activities that built upon different combinations of the eight multiple intelligence areas, as measured by the adapted Brand and Donato (2001b) Multiple Intelligence Survey.

Illustratively, two of the three students in the lowest performing group manifested short attention spans during the literacy sessions. Consequently, the investigator provided opportunities for the students to dramatize several of the children's literature selections, thereby addressing their bodily-kinesthetic multiple intelligence. In the follow-up activities, likewise, the children in this group used large and small motor skills as they found letters and words in scavenger hunts, played relay word games, manipulated onsets and rimes, and dictated their own stories.

In order to develop Phoneme Segmentation, the investigator and the children sang the rhyming, short vowel songs each day of the treatment in the large-group meetings. The children's names and the names of mounted pictures relating to the stories were used for syllabication and phoneme segmentation practice. For each word, the children were asked to clap the syllables, or "parts of the word," while counting aloud for each syllable. As the children's skills became more refined in breaking down words into syllables, the investigator introduced single-syllable words without pictures that related to the stories they had heard. Throughout the investigation, the children were increasingly able to recognize and separately pronounce the different sounds of the letters in the words they heard. For students who confused segmentation with rhyming, or who were unwilling to attempt segmentation, the investigator provided a more concrete means of addressing segmentation. For example, after pronouncing the word "ship," the investigator provided the child with three checkers and a paper cup. The child was asked to place a checker into the cup each time he or she said one of the parts of this word. Therefore, one checker was placed into the cup as the child said /sh/, a second checker was placed as the child said /i/, and a third checker was placed into the cup as the child said /p/. This type of practice was especially appealing to, and effective with, the bodily-kinesthetic learners in the groups.

The pretest raw data for the 13 children revealed that, at the initiation of this study, many of the children had no prior knowledge of, or experience with, Phoneme Segmentation. Indeed, of the 13 children in the study, seven of the children scored a 0 on this subtest in January. All three children in the lowest performing group scored a 0 on this subtest. At the conclusion of the study, in March, none of the 13 children scored a 0 on this subtest. Therefore, the study was effective in introducing these struggling students to a critically important skill and for advancing this skill in all 13 of the children in the group.

Phonics skills were developed by incorporating the children's literature stories into extension activities. For example, while using dry-erase boards, children wrote names and words from the stories they had seen or enacted, such as "big" (from the story Big Al by Clements, 1997). The investigator then asked the children to change the word "big" to "fig." The children were then asked to change "fig" into "kig," into "kib," into "sip," into "sar," and into "tar." The children read the words collectively and individually; then they dictated sentences, using the words they had written. For example, by changing some of the real story words into nonsense words, the children in the most advanced group created an amusing, new story as the investigator scribed the story on chart paper. The children in the middle and lowest performing groups practiced using real and nonsense story words on hand-made tachistoscopes. Several of the children were not initially able to pronounce any of the nonsense words on the pretest. In fact, of the eight children in the middle and lowest performing groups, all of the children except one scored a 0 on this pretest in January. However, during the posttesting in March, none of the students scored a 0. Thus, the intervention was highly successful in developing children's Nonsense Word Fluency.

The activities used to develop language skills involved the children looking at pictures relating to the stories they had observed the investigator tell. For example, after the children participated in the retelling of a story about a lion named Dandelion, the children were shown pictures of animals. The investigator asked the children, one by one, to tell what was happening in the picture using a descriptive ("long and interesting") sentence. The children initially used very brief descriptive sentences and phrases, such as "The brown bear." The children were asked, "Can anyone make this sentence more interesting?" Another child volunteered and expanded the sentence, "The big brown bear is sitting in the green woods on a sunny afternoon." The children discussed the new words that were added. The children in the highest performing group recognized that "adjectives" were added to the second sentence and that the second child explained what was happening to the character in the picture. After practicing the type of activities described in the methodology section for four weeks, the children's sentences became very detailed. When the children became experienced with using descriptive sentences, the investigator informed them that it was time for the "challenge level" activities. The investigator pronounced a word for the children and, collectively, they created a descriptive sentence using the word. The previously applied strategies were applied to the single word/no picture activities.

In January, four of the 13 children in the study did not understand the concept of forming a sentence. Instead, when they were presented with a word, they used a rhyming word or pronounced the same word back to the investigator. All four of these children received scores of 0 on their pretest of Word Use Fluency. In March, for the posttest, no child scored lower than 53 on this subtest; the highest score was a score of 233. Evidently, the procedures for developing meaningful and descriptive language, including the use of pictures, collaborative work, and the development of rich syntax and semantics, were successful in the present study.

The Letter Naming Fluency test results were intriguing to the investigator. All of the children gained fluency in letter naming when pre- and posttests were compared. However, the gains were not significant and were probably due to the children's normal growth and development as a result of their schooling. Letter-naming activities implemented in this program included fishing for alphabet letters, making crowns displaying the letters of their names, solving simple crossword puzzles, identifying letters on letter word cards, and locating letters in language experience stories. However, apparently the time allowed for small-group instruction over the course of seven weeks was insufficient to allow for more advanced development of the children's skills in the important area of letter naming.

Implications

A major implication of the present study is that the teaching of emergent literacy skills and concepts can benefit from expanding beyond a narrow focus on the rehearsal and drill of specific skills by utilizing children's literature, songs, and related and creative activities as a meaningful context for the acquisition and practice of skills. Further, because of the variety of ways in which children may participate in storytelling and extension activities, a literature-based approach has the potential to utilize many combinations of students' multiple intelligences. It is also noteworthy that the intervention was effective in promoting emergent literacy skills in a student population that was made up of low-income, inner-city students. This population includes many students who, for a number of reasons, may be at risk for later difficulties in acquiring critical reading skills and concepts. Thus, the multiple intelligence-based program utilized in the present study has the potential to successfully prepare students for formal reading instruction and to prevent serious academic difficulties in populations where such problems might otherwise occur.

It is important to note that, although the DIBELS test demonstrated high reliability and validity in numerous studies, critics of the DIBELS have found limitations to its use. In particular, in a recent study (Kamii & Manning, 2005), the Nonsense Word Fluency and the Phonemic Segmentation subtests of the DIBELS were not highly correlated in 1st grade. Likewise, the authors from that study found that the Phonemic Segmentation subtest of the DIBELS did not highly correlate with 1st-grade students' writing or their oral reading fluency. Teachers and researchers therefore are advised to enlist other tests, in conjunction with the DIBELS. By incorporating additional tests, teachers may obtain more comprehensive and predictive information regarding children's later reading achievement and their acquisition of comprehensive literacy knowledge. Using a comprehensive set of literacy assessments might complement the information gleaned by the DIBELS regarding children's gateway skills. Such additional measures might include children's writing samples, results of informal reading inventories, vocabulary levels, anecdotal literacy records, and reading and listening comprehension assessments.

To the extent that this program was very successful in meeting the literacy needs of a group of 13 inner-city kindergarten students, it may merit wider applications in other schools and populations. Questions for further investigation include the following:

* How enduring are the gains made by the children in this study? Will children who receive this type of intervention continue to show more advanced skills in phonological awareness, reading, and word use as they progress through 1st grade?

* What would be the effects of more intense levels of intervention? Would the intervention have even greater effects if more program sessions were held over a longer period of time?

* Would the program have greater impact if it were more fully integrated into the instructional routines of the regular classroom teacher?

* Would this approach elicit equally successful and promising results among students who are learning English as a second language?

Author Note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Susan Trostle Brand, School of Education, 702 Chafee Hall, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881 or sent via electronic mail to [e-mail]

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Armstrong, T. (2003). The multiple intelligences of reading and writing: Making the words come alive. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brand, S. T., & Donato, J. (2001a). Storytelling in emergent literacy. Albany, NY: Delmar.

Brand, S. T., & Donato, J. (2001b). Storytelling in emergent literacy (instructor's manual). Albany, NY: Delmar.

Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chall, J. S. (1983). Literacy: Trends and explanations. Educational Researcher, 12(9), 3-8.

Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clay, M. M. (1993). Reading recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Coyne, M. D., & Harn, B.A. (2006). Promoting beginning reading success through meaningful assessment of early literacy skills. Psychology in the Schools, 43(1), 33-43.

Cunningham, P. (2005). Phonics they use: Words for reading and writing (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Elliott, J., Lee, S. W., & Tollefson, N. (2001). A reliability and validity study of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills-Modified. School Psychology Review, 30(1), 33-49.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Good, R. H. (2006). DIBELS On-Line Data System. Retrieved October 3, 2006, from https://dibels.uoregon.edu/data/index.php.

Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R.A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Education Achievement.

Good, R. H., Wallin, J., Simmons, D. C., Kamenui, E. J., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). System-wide percentile ranks for DIBELS benchmark assessment (Tech. Rep. 9). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

Haager, D., & Gersten, R. (2004, March). The predictive validity of DIBELS for English learners in urban schools. Paper presented at the DIBELS Summit, Santa Ana, NM.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Hecht, S. A., Burgess, S. R., Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashott, C.A. (2000). Explaining social class differences in the growth of reading skills from beginning kindergarten to fourth grade: The role of phonological awareness, rate of access, and print knowledge. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12(1-2), 99-127.

Hintze, J. M., Ryan, A. L., & Stoner, G. (2003). Concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. School Psychology Review, 32(4), 541-556.

Kamii, C., & Manning, M. (2005). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): A tool for evaluating student learning? Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20(2), 75-90.

Kaminski, R., & Good, R. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25(2), 215-227.

Speece, D., Mills, C., Ritchey, K., & Hillman, E. (2003). Initial evidence that letter fluency tasks are valid indicators of early reading skills. Journal of Special Education, 36(4), 223-233.

Stewart, M.T. (2004). Early literacy instruction in the climate of No Child Left Behind. The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 732-740.

Torgeson, J. (2004, March). Florida's progress monitoring and reporting network. Paper presented at the DIBELS summit, Santa Ana, NM.

Children's Literature and Music References

Carle, E. (1994). The very hungry caterpillar. New York: Philomel Books.

Clements, A. (1997). Big Al. New York: Aladdin. de Paola, T. (1997). Strega Nona. New York: Little Simon.

Freeman, D. (1977). Dandelion. New York: Puffin Books.

Gag, W. (1996). Millions of cats. New York: Penguin Putnam. (original work published 1928)

Johnson, C. (1981). Harold and the purple crayon. New York: Harper Trophy.

Martin, B. (1991). Chicka-chicka, ABC. New York: Little Simon.

Marzollo, J., & MacDonald, S. (2000). I love you. New York: Scholastic.

Raffi. (1976). Willaby, wallaby, woo. Chicago: Rounder Records.

Raffi. (2000). Apples and bananas. Chicago: Rounder Records.

Seuss, Dr. (1960). One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish. New York: Random House.

Seuss, Dr. (1963). Dr. Seuss's ABC. New York: Random House.

Seuss, Dr. (1974). There's a wocket in my pocket. New York: Random House.

Shaw, C. (1989). It looked like spilt milk. New York: HarperCollins. (original work published 1947)

Viorst, J. (1987). Alexander and the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. New York: Antheneum.

Westcott, N. B. (2003). I know an old lady. New York: Megan Tinley.

Wolkstein, D. (1993). Horse and toad. New York: Scholastic.

Susan Trostle Brand

University of Rhode Island

Multiple Intelligences and Emergent Literacy

                                   Multiple Intelligence Area

Emergent Literacy Skill   Musical                 Bodily-Kinesthetic

Alphabet Knowledge        Sing alphabet chant,    Make alphabet
                          rap, and song books     letters from clay or
                          (e.g., Chicka-Chicka    Play-Doh.
                          ABC, Martin, 1991).     Go on ABC scavenger
                          Read Dr. Seuss          hunts.
                          rhythmically or as      Fish for alphabet
                          a chant or song         letters.
                          (Seuss, 1963).          Play "Letter Hunt"
                                                  games.

Phonemic Awareness/       Sing "I Know an Old     Place checkers in
Phonics                   Lady," "Apples and      cups for every sound
                          Bananas," "Where Is     heard in a word.
                          Short A? (E, I, O,      Clap, raise fingers,
                          U)."                    and/or jump for each
                          Chant Dr. Seuss's       syllable heard.
                          One Fish, Two Fish,
                          Red Fish, Blue Fish
                          (Seuss, 1960).

Nonsense Words            Exchange real for       Fish for real words
                          nonsense words in       and nonsense words.
                          poems, songs, and       Manipulate poster-
                          nursery rhymes.         sized onset and rime
                          Exchange nonsense       words to create real
                          for real words in       and nonsense words.
                          poems, songs, and       Respond to "Willaby
                          nursery rhymes          Wallaby Woo" (Raffi,
                          (e.g., There's a        1976) by jumping
                          Wocket in My Pocket,    Woo" (Raffi, 1976)
                          Seuss, 1974).           by jumping up when
                                                  child's name
                                                  variation is called.

Word Use Fluency          Tell stories in         Tell stories using
                          chant style.            character imagery
                          Use Daily News or       (e.g., Dandelion,
                          language experience     Freeman, 1977; Big
                          sentences set to        Al, Clements, 1997;
                          music.                  and Strega Nona,
                          Sing multi-verse        de Paola, 1997).
                          songs from memory.      Enact dramatic
                          Sing short vowel        (group role play)
                          songs. Begin with       multicultural
                          familiar tunes and      folktales that
                          move on to new          contain chants and
                          tunes and rhythms.      refrains.

                                   Multiple Intelligence Area

Emergent Literacy Skill   Visual-Spatial          Naturalistic

Alphabet Knowledge        Make construction       Participate in
                          paper/decorated         "Nature Hunts" with
                          alphabet letters.       parents; find
                          Draw pictures to        objects to match
                          match targeted          letters.
                          alphabet letters.       Create decorative
                                                  alphabet letters
                                                  using objects found
                                                  in nature, such as
                                                  twigs, leaves,
                                                  shells, grass, and
                                                  pebbles.

Phonemic Awareness/       Color pictures of       Retell It Looked
Phonics                   objects with same       Like Spilt Milk;
                          beginning sounds or     exchange felt cloud
                          rhyming words.          images with other
                          Solve simple            pictures with same
                          crossword puzzles.      vowel sounds.

Nonsense Words            Substitute words on     Rename plants,
                          the felt board          animals, and natural
                          story It Looked         phenomena by
                          Like Spilt Milk         substituting words,
                          (Shaw, 1947/1989).      and beginning and
                          Read real and           ending sounds of
                          nonsense words using    words.
                          a word trail.           Read a list of
                          Complete word           nature words and
                          puzzles, making real    circle only those
                          words from nonsense     that are real words.
                          word parts.

Word Use Fluency          Use felt board          Repeat chant in
                          storytelling to tell    Millions of Cats
                          It Looked Like Spilt    (Gag, 1928/1996).
                          Milk (Shaw, 1947/       Pantomime (with
                          1989) and The Very      words) stories about
                          Hungry Caterpillar      animals and nature
                          (Carle, 1994).          (e.g., Dandelion,
                          Use draw talk           Freeman, 1977; Big
                          storytelling for        Al, Clements,1997;
                          Harold and the          and The Very Hungry
                          Purple Crayon           Caterpillar, Carle,
                          (Johnson, 1981).        1994).
                          Refer to the word       Write a class story
                          wall; combine words     explaining a natural
                          into phrases and        event, such as
                          sentences.              lightning, storms,
                                                  or rainbows.

                                   Multiple Intelligence Area

Emergent Literacy Skill   Logical-Mathematical    Linguistic

Alphabet Knowledge        Place alphabet          Locate targeted
                          letters in correct      words and consonants
                          order.                  on Morning Message.
                          Find missing            Construct letter
                          alphabet letters.       and word booklets.
                          Count number of
                          targeted alphabet
                          letters in Daily
                          News or chart poems.

Phonemic Awareness/       Sequence animal         Re-write and
Phonics                   cards according to      substitute sounds
                          story order and         in Horse and Toad.
                          animal sounds.          Construct "Vowel
                          Sing "I Know an Old     Trains."
                          Lady" (Westcott,        Write in daily
                          2003).                  journals.
                          Use "word boxes"        Complete beginning/
                          boxes" (Clay, 1993).    ending letters in
                          Using animal sounds     Morning News charts.
                          from "I Know an Old     Write grocery lists
                          Lady" as clues,         for a class picnic.
                          sequence animal         Play rhyming books
                          pictures in order       on tape.
                          of occurrence.

Nonsense Words            Name ordinal sounds     Play letter
                          (1st, 2nd, 3rd          substitution games.
                          sounds) in nonsense     Read aloud stories
                          words.                  that use nonsense
                          Make sets of            words (e.g., Dr.
                          nonsense words          Seuss).
                          according to their      Play onset and rime
                          beginning alphabet      games on dry erase
                          letters.                boards.
                                                  Write nonsense
                                                  stories.

Word Use Fluency          Tell The Very Hungry    Tell stories in
                          Caterpillar (Carle,     traditional style.
                          1994), using the        Use puppetry to
                          felt board.             re-tell familiar
                          Write journal           stories.
                          sentences; count own    Use books on tape.
                          and others' words.      Repeat stories,
                          Introduce "more         using chant method,
                          than" and "less         with storytelling
                          than" by counting       (e.g., Alexander and
                          and recording words     the Terrible,
                          used in the oral        Horrible, No Good,
                          sentences.              Very Bad Day,
                                                  Viorst, 1987).

                                   Multiple Intelligence Area

Emergent Literacy Skill   Interpersonal           Intrapersonal

Alphabet Knowledge        Play group board        Write in daily
                          games using alphabet.   journal.
                          Play alphabet relay     Make "Alphabet Hats"
                          games.                  using letters in
                          Enjoy scavenger         using let-
                          hunts, in teams, to     Find and glue
                          locate alphabet-re-     pictures to match
                          lated objects.          targeted alphabet
                                                  letters.

Phonemic Awareness/       Share letter word       Compose individual
Phonics                   books created at        books.
                          home with parents.      Write in daily
                          Play pocket chart       journals.
                          games.                  Explore a collection
                          Enact stories using     of rhyming books
                          animal sounds.          independently (e.g.,
                          Play "How many words    Dr. Seuss).
                          rhyme with --?"         Listen to rhyming
                          Classmates join in      books on tape.
                          the fun by supplying    Manipulate magnetic
                          rhyming words           letters on "cookie"
                          orally.                 sheet. Create word
                                                  "clumps."

Nonsense Words            Play with magnetic      Create real and
                          letters on cookie       nonsense words on
                          tins to create real     dry erase boards
                          and nonsense words.     and magnetic
                          Work with buddies       letter boards.
                          to sound out            Keep a word box or
                          nonsense words on       book containing
                          pocket charts.          real and nonsense
                          Read words on           words.
                          tachistoscopes.

Word Use Fluency          Dramatize and re-tell   Attempt to write
                          Dandelion (Freeman,     one more word or
                          1977).                  "one more sentence"
                          Provide reinforcement   during journal
                          and feedback to         writing.
                          classmates; tell        Use wall words to
                          what was added to       independently create
                          elongate sentences      five or six-word
                          they used (e.g.,        sentences.
                          "The boy ran" = "One    Begin "Kid Writing."
                          day, the big boy        Use a simple rubric
                          ran around the red      to self-rate
                          school").               sentence quality.

Table 1
Kindergarten Norms on DIBELS Measures

                                      Testing Period

                                  Winter              Spring

Measure                       Mean       SD       Mean       SD

Letter Naming Fluency         31.41     17.67     44.48     18.54
Phoneme Segmentation          27.75     20.57     40.56     19.34
  Fluency
Nonsense Word Fluency         26.10     17.83     32.54     22.45
Word Use Fluency              13.46     13.03     22.45     16.51

Note. Winter assessments are conducted in December, January, or
February. Spring assessments are conducted in March, April, or May.
Norms for the Letter Naming Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation, and
Nonsense Word Fluency are from Good et al. (2002). Word Use Fluency
norms are from Haager and Gersten (2004).

Table 2
Pretest and Posttest Scores on DIBELS Measures

                         Pretest        Posttest        Observed
Measure                                                Difference

Letter Naming             33.77          43.23            9.46
  Fluency
Phoneme Segmentation
  Fluency                 25.62          46.31           20.69
Nonsense Word
  Fluency                 23.58          41.96           18.38
Word Use Fluency          22.67          63.96           41.29

                          Expected
Measure                  Difference     t-value            p

Letter Naming              7.04           1.39          n.s.
  Fluency
Phoneme Segmentation
  Fluency                  6.90           4.34          p < .001
Nonsense Word
  Fluency                  6.70           2.91          p < .05
Word Use Fluency           4.84           7.48          p < .001