577664

research-article2015
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244015577664SAGE OpenRohde

Article

SAGE Open

The Comprehensive Emergent Literacy

January-March 2015: 1­–11
© The Author(s) 2015
DOI: 10.1177/2158244015577664
Model: Early Literacy in Context sgo.sagepub.com

Leigh Rohde1

Abstract
The early skills of Emergent Literacy include the knowledge and abilities related to the alphabet, phonological awareness,
symbolic representation, and communication. However, existing models of emergent literacy focus on discrete skills and
miss the perspective of the surrounding environment. Early literacy skills, including their relationship to one another,
and the substantial impact of the setting and context, are critical in ensuring that children gain all of the preliminary skills and
awareness they will need to become successful readers and writers. Research findings over the last few decades have led
to a fuller understanding of all that emergent literacy includes, resulting in a need for a new, more comprehensive model.
A new model, described in this article, strives to explain how emergent literacy can be viewed as an interactive process of
skills and context rather than a linear series of individual components. Early literacy learning opportunities are more likely
to happen when teachers have a solid knowledge base of emergent literacy and child development. Research has shown that
preschool teachers with limited knowledge about literacy development are significantly less able to provide such experiences
for children. Teachers will be better able to facilitate all of the components of emergent literacy if they have access to, and
understanding of, a model that describes the components, their interactions, and the importance of environmental factors
in supporting children.

Keywords
education, social sciences, curriculum, literacy, education theory and practice, early childhood, educational psychology and
counseling, educational research, teacher education, students, teaching

Learning to read has long been held as a necessary ingredient EL—along with how they relate to one another—and recog-
for success in school and in life. Starting children on the path nizing the importance of the setting and context, is critical in
to reading begins early. Children learn about the function and ensuring that children gain all of the preliminary skills and
process of reading long before they pick up a book and awareness they will need to become successful readers and
decode the text. These early skills, known as Emergent writers. Research findings since the development of early
Literacy (EL), include the knowledge and abilities related to models of EL have led to a fuller appreciation of the com-
the alphabet, phonological awareness, symbolic representa- plexities of EL, resulting in a need for the new, more compre-
tion, and communication. The comprehension of these con- hensive model introduced here. The new model, described in
cepts builds over time beginning when children are very this article strives to explain how EL can be viewed as an
young, typically between birth and age 5. The idea of EL was interactive process rather than simply a series of individual
introduced by Marie Clay (1966) in the 1960s. It developed components ( Rohde, 2011).
further in the 1980s to challenge the then-current notion that The concept of EL evolved through the 1980s and 1990s
children were not ready to become literate until reaching a and is now recognized as a combination of developmentally
specific point in time, determined by the child’s age and appropriate practice (DAP; Copple & Bredekamp, 2009)
maturity (Fosnot, 2013; Razfar & Gutiérrez, 2003; Yaden, with an intentional focus on providing opportunities for chil-
Rowe, & MacGillivray, 2000). Since then, EL has been rec- dren to learn about literacy (International Reading
ognized as a vital content area in preschool curriculum, with Association & The National Association for the Education of
a strong research base supporting its use (Blank, 2012;
Connor, Morrison, & Slominsk, 2006; Watson & Wildy, 1
Salem State University, MA, USA
2014).
Corresponding Author:
Existing models of EL tell only part of the story; they Leigh Rohde, School of Education, Salem State University, 352 Lafayette
focus on discrete skills but without a perspective of the envi- Street, Salem, MA 01970-5353, USA.
ronment surrounding them. Yet, understanding these skills of Email: lrohde@salemstate.edu

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further
permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (http://www.uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm).
2 SAGE Open

Young Children, 1998). DAP is a research-based framework the growth that has been observed occurs without the neces-
of practices used to design educational experiences for young sity for formal teaching” (Teale & Sulzby, 1986, p. xx). Yet,
children. It serves as a foundation for the work of the National a close look at this research reveals that children’s ability to
Association for the Education of Young Children (Copple & develop EL skills depends on their access to rich literacy
Bredekamp, 2009). However, research has shown that experiences and expert partners from whom they can learn
although there is strong evidence of the effectiveness of EL (Connor et al., 2006; Dickinson & Sprague, 2001; Gayan &
support and instruction, it is rarely practiced in early child- Olson, 2001; Morrow, 1990). This preliminary research was
hood programs (Powell, Diamond, & Koehler, 2009). In centered on how children build knowledge and skills about
addition, research has shown that some Early Childhood literacy starting very early in life. EL is founded on the the-
Education (ECE) professionals are limited in their awareness ory that literacy emerges from children before they are for-
and knowledge of EL (LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Powell, mally taught to read. In addition, its definition goes beyond
Diamond, Bojczyk, & Gerde, 2008) and that little instruction decoding—encompasses the processes of reading, writing,
in EL, or any of the individual components of EL, is happen- speaking, and listening. The child’s point of view and active
ing in preschool classrooms (Justice, Mashburn, Hamre, & involvement with literacy constructs are highlighted during
Pianta, 2008). There is clearly a gap between research and EL learning; similarly, the social setting in which children
practice of EL in ECE programs. This disparity may be due are learning about literacy is addressed (Mason & Sinha,
to a lack of resources or knowledge in providing high-quality 1993).
EL learning opportunities in ECE classrooms. The initial work on the social implications of communica-
Many early childhood educators have recognized the tion and literacy was built on the conceptual framework of
importance of providing more explicit instruction for their EL. During the first half of the 1980s, EL researchers joined
students asking for training and support (Dickinson & together to challenge the traditional way of thinking about
Caswell, 2007; Nitecki & Chung, 2013; Winsler & Carlton, the way children gain literacy skills (Teale & Sulzby, 1987).
2003). Recent work by Nitecki and Chung (2013) also indi- Research emphasized two basic trends: first, a focus on the
cate tension between teaching EL, using DAP, and address- cognitive processes that influence learning; and second, a
ing the new curriculum standards. These challenges may, at renewed research interest in the sequencing of children’s
least in part, be attributed to a lack of educators’ understand- development (Fosnot, 2013; Teale & Sulzby, 1987). A care-
ing of how these factors can work in harmony. Early literacy ful examination of young children and their development led
learning opportunities are more likely to happen when teach- these researchers to a new way of thinking about children
ers have a solid knowledge base of EL and child develop- learning literacy.
ment. Conversely, preschool teachers with limited knowledge Early research resulted in a pendulum shift away from a
about literacy development are significantly less able to pro- maturationist view of “attaining literacy” as a construct and
vide such experiences for children (Burgess et al., 2001; toward a more “academic” approach to early literacy (Gesell,
Dickinson, Freiberg, & Barnes, 2011; Justice et al., 2008). 1925; Morphett & Washburne, 1931; Teale & Sulzby, 1987).
Teachers will be better able to facilitate all of the components Some educators and others claimed that the naturalistic and
of EL if they have access to—and comprehension of—a maturational view of EL—in which the teaching approach
model that describes the components, the interaction between was to wait for children to develop—resulted in a delay or
the components, and the importance of environmental fac- lack of direct instruction. The outcome was many children
tors in supporting children. This article describes such a failing to learn to read, or at least failing to gain the necessary
model. early literacy knowledge to be successful in early elementary
This article will first review the history and current mod- school (Durkin, 1978; Gates & Bond, 1936; Shea, 2011).
els of EL. Next, the comprehensive emergent literacy model This realization by researchers and early childhood educa-
(CELM) will be introduced and described, illustrating the tors acknowledged a need for a different approach to literacy
important interactions between these components. The con- learning for young children.
text of EL learning will be explained and its importance to
learning will be considered. Finally, potential uses of the
Early Models of EL
model, both in professional development and the lives of
young children, will be discussed. Two models are found in the research literature that concep-
tualize the common skills related to early perceptions of lit-
eracy prior to conventional literacy and their relationship to
Early Research in EL one another (Sénéchal, LeFevre, Smith-Chant, & Colton,
Much of the early research in EL provided support for the 2001). The two, the outside-in, inside-out model and the
proposition that “growth in writing and reading comes from four-component model, include language development as
within the child as a result of environmental stimulation . . . part of EL and are described in detail below.
Rohde 3

Outside-In, Inside-Out Model relates to language, specifically narrative knowledge and

vocabulary.
Whitehurst and Lonigan’s (1998) model of EL describes two The four-component model contains the broad, overarch-
interdependent domains (“Outside-In” and “Inside-out”) of ing concepts of literacy (e.g., that print carries meaning), as
processes and skills. It is represented as a continuum with the they are interpreted by young children. It also includes spe-
knowledge of context at one end and understanding of rules cific skills that young children learn about text, language,
of letters and their sounds at the other. The term Outside-In and the intricacies of literacy (i.e., the shapes of letters).
processes is used to describe conceptual knowledge, such as However, each of the four blocks is presented individually
the function of print, particularly in the context of narrative. with little mention by the author of how the components
Children’s processing of the overall text, according to the interact with one another.
authors, is where the “understanding of the context in which Both models have similar EL components although they
they are trying to read (or write) occurs” (p. 854). Whitehurst are presented in different orientations. They both include
and Lonigan recognized that “comprehension of all but the conceptual knowledge about the function of reading and
simplest of writing depends on knowledge that cannot be writing, beginning procedural knowledge of how literacy
found in the word or sentence itself” (p. 854). The outside-in works, oral language skills, including vocabulary, and meta-
end of the literacy continuum recognizes that reading is inef- linguistic skills such as phonological awareness (Sénéchal et
fective without comprehension strategies, including the use al., 2001). In addition, both models include the importance of
of background knowledge, to decipher the message of the considering knowledge beyond EL skills, for instance, back-
writer to the reader. ground knowledge and awareness of semantics (e.g., the
The term Inside-Out processes describes procedural meanings of language) and pragmatics (e.g., the situational
knowledge related to skills of literacy. This includes under- context of language).
standing how to match the smallest components of literacy,
sounds, and print units (e.g., letters) together, moving toward
larger units of words (Sénéchal et al., 2001). The Development of EL Skills
The outside-in, inside-out model is a continuum of skills Each individual component of EL is comprised of complex
and concepts. In the middle of the model are “language developmental sequences. EL has been referred to as a devel-
units” (e.g., words) that demonstrate the merger of skills opmental continuum (Sénéchal et al., 2001; Teale & Sulzby,
(e.g., putting letters and sounds together into words) and 1987; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001) but research suggests
conceptual knowledge (e.g., inferring meaning from text). that, additionally, each component of EL is on its own trajec-
Whitehurst and Lonigan (1998) posited that to successfully tory of development and the components are not strictly
transition into conventional reading, children must have both related to one another as part of a consecutive sequence
procedural and conceptual skills of literacy. (Clay, 1998; McGee & Richgels, 2003). Researchers have
long recognized and documented that young children develop
oral language skills using consistent patterns and sequences
Four-Component Model (von Tetzchner, Merete Brekke, Sjothun, & Grindheim,
A second model, developed by Mason and Stewart (1990), 2005). Phonological awareness skill development follows a
also includes both conceptual and procedural knowledge of sequence as well, with rhyming and alliteration as the begin-
EL learning. The four-component model consists of four ning and segmenting and blending phonemes later on
blocks: (a) concepts and functions of literacy, (b) writing and (Goswami, 2001). Similarly, children’s emergent writing
composing, (c) knowledge about letters and words, and (d) lis- develops through a series of stages from scribbling to pseu-
tening comprehension and word understanding (Sénéchal et doletters to inventive spelling (Sulzby, 1989). There is not
al., 2001). Concepts and functions of literacy are the broad one clear path of EL development but rather a series of asso-
understandings and behaviors related to reading and writing. ciated and concurrent experiences that result in the building
These do not include specific skills but rather an overarching of knowledge and skills related to the literacy process. For
perception of literacy. For instance, children understand that instance, a child’s emergent writing development may be
print is static and remains consistent over time. The writing enhanced by, though not necessarily dependent on, his or her
and composing component focuses on words and sentences in level of phonological awareness. Recognizing these stages of
terms of composition, but not specific letter formation or development within each component of EL is important in
“drawing.” Knowledge about letters and words includes providing appropriate learning opportunities and scaffolded
alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness, including support.
letter–sound relationships. This component comprises much The two recognized models (Mason & Stewart, 1990;
more specific knowledge and skills than the first two compo- Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998), described above, do not
nents. Last, listening comprehension and word understanding address the complexities of EL. Based on new research, a
4 SAGE Open

comprehensive model of EL is proposed. It describes each of and (c) Silent Reading Comprehension. Each component
the components of EL, the interrelationships between the consists of specific skills that emergent readers must learn
components, and the importance of culture and community. and understand before they can acquire conventional
literacy.
The CELM model contains three similar components,
A New Model of EL
each a precursor to the components listed above. First, print
The CELM goes beyond a set of skills to bring four addi- awareness leads to word identification. Print awareness
tional considerations to these existing models: (a) Each EL includes alphabet knowledge and concepts of print (e.g.,
component has its own developmental sequence; (b) each book handling skills). Second, phonological awareness is
component supports the development of other components closely related to listening comprehension. Phonological
as part of a holistic appreciation, rather than in a linear way awareness includes skills like rhyming and segmenting
as found in early models; (c) the importance of recognizing sounds. The third component, oral language, leads to silent
the environment in which children and their families live; reading comprehension. Oral language includes under-
and (d) this model connects EL components with the recom- standing and using vocabulary, background knowledge,
mendations of three national authorities on ECE and EL and semantics. There are also skills that overlap these com-
learning. These distinctive aspects of CELM provide clarity ponents. Print awareness and phonological awareness over-
to the value of each EL component as well as the interactive lap with skills such as understanding the relationship
nature of the components. between letters and sounds and inventive spelling. The
Three national organizations have provided published overlap between oral language and print awareness includes
guidelines and recommendations of strategies to promote EL skills like using grammar and understanding syntax. The
learning in preschoolers that were used in the development overlap between oral language and phonological awareness
of the CELM. In 1998, the International Reading Association includes skills related to lexical restructuring, a mental
and the National Association for the Education of Young organization of words using sounds rather than the meaning
Children produced a joint position statement on EL of words.
(International Reading Association & The National In addition, the CELM recognizes and emphasizes the
Association for the Education of Young Children, 1998). relationship and the overlap of skills and knowledge between
This document, Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally the major components. A fourth component, writing, includes
Appropriate Practices for Young Children, is still dissemi- all of the pieces of the model. Writing has a strong reciprocal
nated widely as a reputable source of recommended prac- relationship with the other three components (Teale &
tices. The third organization, Head Start, released their Child Sulzby, 1987). The skills of composition and the mechanics
Outcomes framework containing recommendations for all of writing support the skills of language development, print
areas of child development, including EL learning awareness, and phonological awareness. These components
(Administration on Children, Youth and Families/Head Start are also critical in supporting the development of the skills
Bureau, 2001). Each of these organizations’ guidelines was and conventions related to the writing process.
used as a means to evaluate the soundness of this new model Writing is situated in the center of the model as it is where
of EL. children can often demonstrate their knowledge of literacy
The CELM represents all of the components of EL in a concepts. Through emergent writing, children can manipu-
Venn diagram of circles (see the appendix) set in a context of late alphabet letters, word choice, and letter/sound relation-
environmental indicators. The intersections and overlaps of ship in authentic and purposeful ways. Creating their own
the model demonstrate the holistic nature of EL learning for messages and stories, children can create deeper awareness
young children. As is true for all children’s learning, EL is of the components more closely related to reading. Writing is
best learned, and understood, as knowledge that affects all where all the pieces come together and are used to produce a
parts of a young child’s life. The CELM illustrates a different new message—The children are now the initiators of literacy
way of looking at the contexts children live in, and the skills rather than the receivers.
and understandings they gain as they move toward conven- The components of EL include the skills that children
tional literacy. develop prior to conventional reading and writing as well as
The CELM model is loosely based on the work of James the conceptual knowledge of print and how it functions.
Cunningham (1993) and his Whole-to-Part Literacy There is some debate as to the specific skills to be included
Assessment. This assessment focuses on three components of in EL (Sénéchal et al., 2001). It is universally understood that
reading. Each component is a distinct and separate ability that the theory of EL promotes learning literacy as a process
is necessary for successful reading; each component is also (Guo, Justice, Kaderavek, & McGinty, 2012; Helland, Tjus,
made up of parts that can be assessed to determine why chil- Hovden, Ofte, & Heimann, 2011; Lanter, Watson, Erickson,
dren may be struggling to learn to read. The three components & Freeman, 2012; Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-
are (a) Word Identification, (b) Listening Comprehension, Blatchford, & Taggart, 2010; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001).
Rohde 5

In the next section, the four specific components of EL are the sounds of language (Goswami, 2001). This may be dif-
described, as illustrated in the CELM, and cited by the major ficult for some children as “this sensitivity to the sounds of
documents described above. the phonemes and the differences between them is not con-
scious. It is deeply imbedded in the subattentional machin-
ery of the language system” (Adams, 1998, p. 3). It is not
Language Development
automatic for some children to discriminate between the
Oral language development is a critical aspect of literacy sound of language from the meanings of words (Goswami,
learning (Roskos, Tabors, & Lenhart, 2004; Whitehurst 2001), perhaps because most children learn language as
&Lonigan, 2001). Children depend on language for social communication first and only later learn to attend to the
interaction and communication, demonstration of ability and sounds.
knowledge, and acquiring new concepts (McGee & Richgels,
2003). A child’s familiarity with language and vocabulary is Lexical Restructuring—Overlap Between Oral
strongly linked to his or her later literacy success (Lane &
Wright, 2007). Despite the recognized importance, opportu-
Language and Phonological Awareness
nities for children to develop oral language skills can be lim- The reorganization of language by sound rather than by defi-
ited in preschool (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Tabors, & nition requires children to know about oral language as well
Snow, 2001). This may be due to curriculum or instructional as phonological awareness. This new type of organization
decisions made by educators, such as requiring children to has been referred to as “lexical restructuring” in the research
raise their hands before speaking or teachers primarily ask- (Stadler, Watson, & Skahan, 2007; Walley, Metsala, &
ing yes/no questions of their students. Garlock, 2003). Lexical restructuring “is based on the prem-
Researchers have suggested that there is a need to con- ise that in the normal course of development, children’s pho-
sider a wider range of oral language skills, beyond vocabu- nological representations become increasingly segmental
lary and phonological awareness, to better understand the and distinctly specified in terms of phonetic features with
connection between oral language and literacy (Roth, Speece, age” (Goswami, 2001, p. 113). It is represented in the CELM
& Cooper, 2002; Traw, 1993). In their research, Roth et al. graphic as the overlap between the language and phonologi-
(2002) concluded that the variables associated with early oral cal awareness components.
language development provided an initial advantage in gain- There is great interest in determining why some children
ing conventional literacy skills. However, much of that have difficulty gaining phonological awareness, primarily
advantage could be mediated by effective instruction in both because it relates so closely to later reading success (Anthony,
oral language development and early literacy skills. et al., 2011; Duff, Hayiou-Thomas, & Hulme, 2012). It could
be argued that children with speech and language disabilities
struggle because of limited vocabulary rather than an inabil-
Phonological Awareness ity to learn to distinguish between the sounds of language. If
Phonological awareness is the ability to detect, identify, and a major premise of the theory of lexical restructuring is that
manipulate the sound structure of language, along with being children’s ability to build this organizational structure
one of the strongest predictors of later reading success depends on the size of their vocabulary, particularly spoken
(DeBaryshe & Gorecki, 2007; Dickinson, McCabe, words, it follows that children with limited vocabularies,
Anastasopoulos, Peisner-Feinberg, & Poe, 2003; Ehri et al., because of oral language disabilities, will have further diffi-
2001). The importance of acquiring phonological awareness culty building a system of phonemes and morphemes.
cannot be overstated. It is closely linked with most specific Further research in examining the phonological awareness
learning disabilities in reading (Brady & Shankweiler, 2013; skills of children with oral language disabilities who have
Melby-Lervåg, Lyster, & Hulme, 2012). There is great sig- access to high levels of receptive and expressive vocabulary
nificance in a child’s awareness of the relationship between could provide insight to this query.
letters and sounds; according to Adams, it has very strong
“predictive power” to identify students who may struggle Print Awareness
with learning to read (Adams, 1998, p. 2). As Goswami
(2001) determined, awareness of phonemes may need to be Print Awareness is typically divided into the two primary cat-
directly taught to some children as they may not develop that egories of alphabet knowledge and concepts of print. Both
skill on their own. categories contribute to awareness of how written language
Demonstrating the concept of rhyme is seen as the first is constructed and used.
indicator of phonological awareness in young children
(Justice & Pullen, 2003). Rhyming, for many children, is the Alphabet knowledge. Becoming literate depends both on
first time they shift their focus from the meaning of words to knowledge of language and an understanding of text systems
6 SAGE Open

and symbols. In the English language, the foundation of text is Emergent writing is a process that requires the integration of
based on the 26 letters of the alphabet. Alphabet knowledge phonological awareness (being able to hear and isolate the
consists of being able to recognize and name letters (Foulin, sounds of “bat” to /b/-/a/-/t/), print awareness (being aware
2005), identify the sounds of letters (Invernizzi & Purcell, that text carries the message), and language (being aware
2003), produce the letters (Stachoviak, 1996), and match text that the meanings of words portray a message). The seminal
letters with their sounds (Invernizzi & Purcell, 2003; Juel, work of Elizabeth Sulzby (1986) first illustrated that children
Griffith, & Gough, 1986). Specifically, the alphabetic princi- acquired many early writing skills and developed knowledge
ple, “the basic concept that letters represent segments of their about the process of writing long before they were conven-
own speech” (Moats, 2000, p. 10), refers to written letters and tional readers. This was in direct opposition to how many
their corresponding phonemes. Letter name knowledge has children were learning to write in the early elementary
also been shown to be a strong predictor of later reading suc- grades. It is now understood that children can express their
cess in multiple studies over the past two decades (Foulin, awareness of EL through writing.
2005). It is a critical skill in acquiring the alphabetic princi- Emergent writing is supported by all the other compo-
ple (Adams, 2001). nents of EL—language, print awareness, and phonological
awareness. Children move from writing primarily through
Concepts of print.  The term “Concepts of Print” refers to a drawing and illustration, often accompanied by a spoken
knowledge base about print and how it works (Strickland & description of their work, to the inclusion of letters (or pseu-
Schickedanz, 2004). These concepts range from appreciating doletters) as they gain alphabet skills. These letters will
that print has different functions and that print carries a mes- more closely represent words as children gain phonological
sage to knowing the differences between words and letters. awareness and knowledge of letter–sound relationships.
As with phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge, Research has indicated that children who spend time writ-
concepts of print comprehension follow a basic developmen- ing, or in “code-focused activities,” have higher levels of
tal continuum. Acquiring the concepts of words involves alphabet knowledge and word recognition than children
beginning phonological awareness along with alphabet who spent more time in “meaning focused activities”
knowledge by learning to separate speech into words and to (Connor et al., 2006). Other studies point out the literacy
match sounds with letters (Mason & Allen, 1986). skills children gain from writing activities during dramatic
play as a way to learn about the functions of print
Comprehension Strategies—Overlap Between (Einarsdottir, 1996). Through their grasp of early writing,
children deepen their awareness of the other components of
Oral Language and Print Awareness EL too.
Print awareness relates to oral language learning with regard
to syntax, grammar, and the similarities and differences
Impact of Context on EL
between the spoken and written word. Comprehension strat-
egies of predicting, inferring, and reasoning are used both The three, interlinked components are situated in the context
when listening and reading. Children learn that the setting of culture, community, and demographics. A child’s ability
and context matters when they are speaking and reading. to gain EL skills is influenced by these environmental fac-
tors as they dictate access to EL opportunities, the impor-
tance associated with EL, and the support children will
Code-Based Knowledge—Overlap Between
receive from people around them to learn about reading and
Phonological Awareness and Print Awareness writing.
Phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge are both The previously described models (Mason & Stewart,
used in code-based knowledge (Connor et al., 2006). Phonics, 1990; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998) present children’s EL as
the later developing skill of matching letters with their a combination of conceptual knowledge (e.g., understanding
sounds, is the first step in learning to decode text. Decoding the functions of print and text and emerging [or “pretend”]
requires knowledge of the alphabet and the sounds of reading and writing), and procedural knowledge (e.g., match-
language. ing alphabet letters and their sounds and book handling
skills). However, recognition of the role of the environment,
and in particular social and cultural experiences, were not
Writing well captured in the earlier models. Educators in the early
Emergent writing, or a child’s first attempt to put marks on 2000s realized the importance of the environment in ensur-
paper to create a message, begins long before any recogni- ing children had sufficient opportunities to interact with lit-
tion of letters or words may be seen. At first, children are eracy. The learning environment could “support and extend
simply realizing that making marks can create meaning. literacy” by providing activities as well as materials beyond
Rohde 7

just providing a place for this learning to occur (Roskos & First, the CELM may be used as a way to structure ECE
Neuman, 2001, p. 282). curriculum and instruction. Consistent with recommended
In examining environmental factors on literacy skill practice in ECE, the CELM portrays a holistic view of how
development, the role of culture and community must be children learn about the many parts of EL, including the
considered. There is a strong body of evidence describing the development of each part, which must be addressed.
correlations between social and cultural experiences and suc- Because the CELM sets the learning of EL skills and
cess in school and learning to read and write (McLachlan, knowledge in a culture and a community, it provides a con-
2007; von Tetzchner, Brekke, & Sjothun, 2005). Pellegrini text to the learning. Second, it may be used in determining
(2001) argued that the role of social contexts, in particular areas of strength and need, through assessment of chil-
through relationships, is critical in developing “literate lan- dren’s use and recognition of EL skills. Students can be
guage” in young children (p. 59). The seminal study of Hart assessed on individual components of EL to determine
and Risley (1995) clearly demonstrated the effect of environ- where they may need additional support or experience. On
ment, particularly the impact of poverty, on language acqui- a larger scale, the CELM can be used to evaluate if the
sition and learning. Through these studies and others, the child’s home context is likely to support EL learning by
role that the environment plays on EL is now recognized as providing learning experiences in all areas of EL indicated
critical in supporting literacy growth in young children by the model.
(Fosnot, 2013). Third, the CELM can serve as a format for providing
EL is learned within a context of culture, community, professional development to ECE teachers who need a
and demographics. As indicated in the CELM model, these deeper knowledge of EL. Learning can focus on particular
three constructs are important to consider as supports or components of EL or on the entire model depending on the
barriers to young children’s access to EL learning experi- needs of the audience. Beyond the EL components, the
ences. How early learning of literacy is viewed within the model provides a structure to help teachers learn how
culture of a child will have an impact on the availability to support students’ learning in the classroom and
and acceptance of EL in that community. For instance, cul- community.
tures in which children are “seen and not heard,” are likely Fourth, the model may also be used in guiding research
to provide fewer opportunities that encourage expressive of not only the components of EL but also the relationship
language skills. Similarly, a family that does not prioritize between the components and how best to support young
reading, for any number of reasons, is less likely to have a children’s learning. Because it describes each component,
wide variety of children’s books in the home. Outside the the components’ interaction with one another, and the set-
child’s immediate home, the community also influences tings that impact learning, the CELM can provide a frame-
EL growth. Community refers to the surrounding neigh- work to design research not only on how children learn
borhoods and the decisions made by local boards and orga- about EL but how that learning impacts their later school
nizations, such as the provision of toddler story hours at success. It can also be used in research examining how a
the library or access to high-quality ECE programs. teacher can best support children’s learning. For example,
Demographics reflect the background experiences and the structure of the model can help to examine the relation-
lifestyles of both the children and their teachers. Each of ship between teachers’ efficacy and confidence in providing
these constructs has an impact on children’s abilities to EL learning opportunities and children’s success in gaining
gain EL. EL skills.
The CELM provides the fields of ECE and Literacy with
a new, evidence-based understanding of how young children
Practical Implications of the CELM
become literate. It incorporates not only the skills and under-
The CELM presented here provides a framework for teach- standing of the individual components of EL but also the
ers, researchers, and other professionals to understand and context in which children come to this knowledge. By pro-
explore the components and contexts of EL in a comprehen- viding ECE teachers with a clearer picture of EL, they will
sive and organized way. There are four practical uses for the be better able to provide learning opportunities that engage
CELM model in ECE settings, two related to working with children in gaining that emergent knowledge of letters,
young children, one for professional development, and one words, and sounds. In turn, children will become successful
for further research. readers, writers, and learners.
8 SAGE Open

Appendix
The Comprehensive Emergent Literacy Model

PRINT AWARENESS
Alphabet knowledge
Concepts about print
• Book orientation
• Print orientation
• Text vs. illustration

CULTURE DEMOGRAPHICS
• Comprehension
Strategies • Letter-sound
• Similarities/ relationships
differences of speech • Inventive spelling
and text
• Grammar

Generating
text
LANGUAGE (writing)
PHONOLOGICAL
AWARENESS
Vocabulary
Background knowledge
Semantics R yme
Rh
Rhyme
Communication • Lexical Alliteration
Relaying/Receiving messages Restructuring Segmenting
Blending

COMMUNITY

Declaration of Conflicting Interests comes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
Anthony, J. L., Aghara, R., Dunkelberger, M. J., Anthony, T. I.,
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Williams, J. M., & Zhou, Z. (2011). What factors place chil-
dren with speech sound disorders at risk for reading problems?
Funding
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20, 146-
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or 160.
authorship of this article. Author. (2011). Emergent literacy and disability: Preschool teach-
ers’ beliefs and practices (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
References University of New Hampshire, Durham.
Adams, M. J. (1998). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning Blank, J. (2012). Fostering language and literacy learning: Strategies
about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. to support the many ways children communicate. Dimensions
Adams, M. J. (2001). Alphabetic anxiety and explicit, systematic of Early Childhood, 40(1), 3-11.
phonics instruction: A cognitive science perspective. In S. B. Brady, S. A., & Shankweiler, D. P. (2013). Phonological processes
Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman. New York, NY:
research (pp. 66-80). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Routledge.
Administration on Children, Youth and Families/Head Start Burgess, K. A., Lundgren, K. A., Lloyd, J. W., & Pianta, R. C.
Bureau. (2001). The Head Start path to positive child out- (2001). Preschool teachers’ self-reported beliefs and practices
Rohde 9

about literacy instruction (No. 2-012). Ann Arbor, MI: Center Gates, A., & Bond, G. (1936). Reading readiness: A study of factors
for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. determining success and failure in beginning reading. Teacher
Clay, M. M. (1966). Emergent reading behaviour (Phd disserta- College Record, 37, 679-685.
tion), ResearchSpace@ Auckland). Gayan, J., & Olson, R. K. (2001). Genetic and environmental influ-
Clay, M. M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ences on orthographic and phonological skills in children with
Maine: Stenhouse. reading disabilities. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20, 487-
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Slominsk, L. (2006). Preschool 511.
instruction and children’s emergent literacy growth. Journal of Gesell, A. (1925). The mental growth of the pre-school child: A
Educational Psychology, 98, 665-689. psychological outline of normal development from birth to the
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally sixth year, including a system of developmental diagnosis. New
appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving York, NY: Macmillan.
children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Goswami, U. (2001). Early phonological development and the
National Association for the Education of Young Children. acquisition of literacy. In S. B. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.),
Cunningham, J. (1993). Whole to part reading diagnosis. Reading Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 111-125). New York,
& Writing Quarterly, 9, 31-49. NY: Guilford Press.
DeBaryshe, B. D., & Gorecki, D. M. (2007). An experimental vali- Guo, Y., Justice, L. M., Kaderavek, J. N., & McGinty, A. (2012). The
dation of a preschool literacy curriculum. Early Education and literacy environment of preschool classrooms: Contributions to
Development, 1, 8, 93-110. children’s emergent literacy growth. Journal of Research in
Dickinson, D. K., & Caswell, L. (2007). Building support for Reading, 35, 308-327.
language and early literacy in preschool classrooms through Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences. Baltimore,
in-service professional development: Effects of the Literacy MD: Brookes.
Environment Enrichment Program (LEEP). Early Childhood Helland, T., Tjus, T., Hovden, M., Ofte, S., & Heimann, M. (2011).
Research Quarterly, 22, 243-260. Effects of bottom-up and top-down intervention principles in
Dickinson, D. K., Freiberg, J. B., & Barnes, E. M. (2011). Why are emergent literacy in children at risk of developmental dyslexia:
so few interventions really effective? A call for fine-grained A longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44,
research methodology. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson 105-122.
(Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 337-357). International Reading Association & The National Association for
New York, NY: Guilford Press. the Education of Young Children. (1998). Learning to read
Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Anastasopoulos, L., Peisner- and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young
Feinberg, E. S., & Poe, M. D. (2003). The comprehensive children: A joint position statement. Washington, DC: Author.
language approach to early literacy: The interrelationships Invernizzi, M., & Purcell, T. (2003). PALS-K instructional strate-
among vocabulary, phonological sensitivity, and print knowl- gies for Virginia’s Early Intervention Reading Initiative (CD).
edge among preschool-aged children. Journal of Educational Charlottesville, VA: Rubicon Productions.
Psychology, 95, 465-481. Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of liter-
Dickinson, D. K., & Sprague, K. E. (2001). The nature and impact acy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade.
of early childhood care environments on the language and early Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243-255.
literacy development of children from low-income families. In Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A. J., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C.
S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early lit- (2008). Quality of language and literacy instruction in pre-
eracy research (pp. 263-280). New York, NY: Guilford Press. school classrooms serving at-risk pupils. Early Childhood
Duff, F., Hayiou-Thomas, M., & Hulme, C. (2012). Evaluating the Research Quarterly, 23, 51-68.
effectiveness of a phonologically based reading intervention Justice, L. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2003). Promising interventions
for struggling readers with varying language profiles. Reading for promoting emergent literacy skills: Three evidence-based
and Writing, 25, 621-640. approaches. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23,
Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about read- 99-113.
ing comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, Lane, H. B., & Wright, T. L. (2007). Maximizing the effectiveness
14, 481-533. of reading aloud. The Reading Teacher, 60, 668-675.
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Lanter, E., Watson, L. R., Erickson, K. A., & Freeman, D. (2012).
Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic aware- Emergent literacy in children with autism: An exploration of
ness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the developmental and contextual dynamic processes. Language,
National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43, 308-324.
Quarterly, 36, 250-287. LoCasale-Crouch, J., Konold, T., Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal,
Einarsdottir, J. (1996). Dramatic play and print. Childhood M., Bryant, D., & Barbarin, O. (2007). Profiles of observed
Education, 72, 352-357. classroom quality in state-funded pre-kindergarten programs
Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and and associations with teacher, program, and classroom charac-
practice. New york, NY: Teachers College Press. teristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 3-17.
Foulin, J. N. (2005). Why is letter-name knowledge such a good Mason, J., & Allen, J. B. (1986). A review of emergent literacy
predictor of learning to read? Reading and Writing, 18, 129- with implications for research and practice in reading. Review
155. of Research in Education, 13, 3-47.
10 SAGE Open

Mason, J. M., & Sinha, S. (1993). Emerging literacy in the early Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing read-
childhood years: Applying a model of learning and develop- ing difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National
ment (Research on the Education of Young Children). New Academy Press.
York, NY: Macmillan Stachoviak, S. (1996). Will kindergartners’ writing experiences
Mason, J. M., & Stewart, J. P. (1990). Emergent literacy assessment improve their learning of letter names and sounds? Teaching
for instructional use in kindergarten. In L. M. Morrow & J. K. and Change, 3, 315-324.
Smith (Eds.), Assessment for instruction in early literacy (pp. Stadler, M. A., Watson, M., & Skahan, S. (2007). Rhyming and
155-175). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall vocabulary: Effects of lexical restructuring. Communication
McGee, L. M., & Richgels, D. J. (2003). Designing early literacy Disorders Quarterly, 28, 197-205.
programs: Strategies for at-risk preschool and kindergarten Strickland, D., & Schickedanz, J. (2004). Learning about print in
children. New York, NY: Guilford Press. preschool: Working with letters, words, and beginning links
McLachlan, C. (2007). Emergent literacy. In Makin, L., Diaz, C.J. with phonemic awareness. Newark, DE: International Reading
& McLachlan, C. (Eds.) Literacies in childhood: Changing Association.
views, challenging practices (Vol. 2, pp. 15-30). NSW, Sulzby, E. (1989). Emergent literacy: Kindergartners write and
Australia: : Elsevier Marrickville. read, including Sulzby coding system (Monograph accompany-
Melby-Lervåg, M., Lyster, S. A. H., & Hulme, C. (2012). ing videotape by same title, a publication of Computers in Early
Phonological skills and their role in learning to read: A meta- Literacy (CIEL) Research Project). Ann Arbor: The Regents of
analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 322-352. The University of Michigan and the North Central Regional
Moats, L. C. (2000). Speech to print: Language essentials for Educational Laboratory. (Reprinted and distributed by the
teachers. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Agency for Instructional Technology (AIT): Bloomington, IN,
Morphett, M., & Washburne, C. (1931). When should children 1990).
begin to read? Elementary School Journal, 31, 496-503. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., &
Morrow, L. M. (1990). Preparing the classroom environment Taggart, B. (Eds.). (2010). Early childhood matters: Evidence
to promote literacy during play. Early Childhood Research from the effective pre-school and primary education project.
Quarterly, 5, 537-554. London, England: Routledge.
Nitecki, E., & Chung, M. H. (2013). What is not covered by the Tabors, P. O., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Young bilingual children and
standards: How to support emergent literacy in preschool class- early literacy development. In S. F. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson
rooms. The Language and Literacy Spectrum, 23, 46-56. (Eds.) Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 159-191). New
Pellegrini, A. D. (2001). Some theoretical and methodological York, NY: Guilford Press.
considerations in studying literacy in social context. In S. B. Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent literacy as a perspec-
Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy tive for looking at how children become writers and readers.
research (pp. 54-65).New York, NY: Guilford Press. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing
Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., Bojczyk, K. E., & Gerde, H. G. and reading (pp. vii-xxv). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
(2008). Head Start teachers’ perspectives on early literacy. Teale, W. H., &Sulzby, E. (1986). Writing Research:
Journal of Literacy Research, 40, 422-460. Multidisciplinary Inquiries into the Nature of Writing Series.
Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., & Koehler, M. J. (2009). Use of a Emergent Literacy: Writing and Reading. Chestnut St.,
case-based hypermedia resource in an early literacy coaching Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
intervention with pre-kindergarten teachers. Topics in Early Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1987). Literacy acquisition in early
Childhood Special Education, 29, 239-249. childhood: The roles of access and mediation in storybook
Razfar, A., & Gutierrez, K. (2003). Reconceptualizing early child- reading. In D. A. Wagner (Ed.), The future of literacy in a
hood literacy: The sociocultural influence. In N. Hall, J. Larson, changing world (pp. 111-130). New York, NY: Pergamon.
& J. Marsh (Eds), Handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. Traw, R. (1993). Nothing in the middle: What middle schoolers are
34-47). London: SAGE.  reading (ERIC ED384864 ).
Roskos, K. A., & Neuman, S. B. (2001). Environment and its influ- von Tetzchner, S., Merete Brekke, K., Sjothun, B, & Grindheim,
ences for early literacy teaching and learning. In S. B. Neuman E. (2005). Constructing preschool communities of learners that
& D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research afford alternative language development. Augmentative and
(pp. 281-294). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Alternative Communication, 21(2), 82-100.
Roskos, K. A., Tabors, P. O., & Lenhart, L. A. (2004). Oral lan- vonTetzchner, S., Brekke, K. M., Sjøthun, B., &Grindheim, E.
guage and early literacy in preschool: Talking, reading, and (2005). Constructing preschool communities of learners that
writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. afford alternative language development. Augmentative and
Roth, F. P., Speece, D. L., & Cooper, D. H. (2002). A longitudi- alternative communication. 21(2), 82-100.
nal analysis of the connection between oral language and early Walley, A. C., Metsala, J. L., & Garlock, V. M. (2003). Spoken
reading. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 259-272. vocabulary growth: Its role in the development of phoneme
Sénéchal, M., LeFevre, J., Smith-Chant, B. L., & Colton, K. V. (2001). awareness and early reading ability. Reading and Writing, 16,
On refining theoretical models of emergent literacy: The role of 5-20.
empirical evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 439-460. Watson, R., & Wildy, H. (2014). Pedagogical practice of early
Shea, M. (2011). Parallel learning of reading and writing in early childhood teachers: Explicit enhancement of students’ liter-
childhood. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. acy. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(2), 82-90.
Rohde 11

Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/documentSumm Yaden, D., Rowe, D., & MacGillivray, L. (2000). Emergent lit-
ary;dn=365458281892942;res=IELHSS eracy: A matter (polyphony) of perspectives. In M. L. Kamil,
Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook
emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848-872. of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 425-454). Mahwah, NJ:
Whitehurst, G. J., &Lonigan, C. J. (2001). Emergent literacy: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Development from prereaders to readers. Handbook of early
literacy research. 1, 11-29.
Author Biography
Winsler, A., & Carlton, M. P. (2003). Observations of children’s
task activities and social interactions in relation to teacher Leigh Rohde teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in
perceptions in a child-centered preschool: Are we leaving too Special Education at Salem State University in Salem, Mass. Her
much to Chance? Early Education and Development, 14, 155- research focuses on EL for students with disabilities and teacher
178. preparation.