126


Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Vol. 69 (135)



No. 1/2018
pp. 126–144

Ljubica Marjanovič Umek,
Kaja Hacin, and Urška Fekonja

ISSN 0038 0474

Children’s early literacy:
The effect of preschool
and family factors
Abstract: In this longitudinal study, we established the effect of additional activities used by professionals
in two preschool groups to systematically achieve goals related to early literacy within the framework
of preschool curriculum on children’s achievements in several aspects of early literacy. Children’s early
literacy was also analysed in relation to parental education, children’s age at entry into preschool and
several factors of family literacy. The study included 46 children aged 5.1 to 6 years. Using the selected
instruments, various aspects of children’s early literacy—their graphomotor skills, storytelling and metalinguistic awareness—were analysed twice within a three-month period and assessed by the preschool
teachers. The obtained results showed that, between the first and second assessment, children from
both preschool groups significantly progressed in all areas of early literacy. Factors related to family
literacy were not significantly related to children’s early literacy, nor was children’s age at entry into
preschool. However, the children of parents with a lower level of education, who attended preschool
for a longer period of time, narrated developmentally more complex stories compared to children who
entered preschool at a higher age, indicating the compensatory role of preschool.
Keywords: early literacy, preschool curriculum, scaffolding, family environment
UDC: 373.2
Scientific article

Ljubica Marjanovič Umek, PhD, full professor, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department
of psychology, Aškerčeva cesta 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; e-mail: ljubica.marjanovic@ff.uni-lj.si
Kaja Hacin, teaching assistant, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of psychology,
Aškerčeva cesta 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; e-mail: kaja.hacin@ff.uni-lj.si
Urška Fekonja, PhD, associate professor, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of psychology, Aškerčeva cesta 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; e-mail: urska.fekonja@ff.uni-lj.si

Marjanovič Umek, Hacin, Fekonja    127



Introduction
Definition of children’s early literacy
In the 1980s, researchers in the fields of developmental psychology and psycholinguistics (e.g. Carrington & Luke 2003; Langford 2005) redefined the concept of
early or emerging literacy and underlined the conceptual connection between early
and academic literacy. Their work was based on socio-cultural theories emphasising
the developmental continuum in toddlers’ and children’s cognitive and social development, the important relationship between language, culture and development
and the role of environmental factors, particularly provision of a symbolically rich
environment and encouragement of toddlers’/children’s development and learning
within the zone of proximal development (Gillen & Hall 2003).
Researchers (e.g. Clay 1996; Karmiloff & Karmiloff-Smith 2001; Marjanovič
Umek 2013; Olson 1994) whose explanations of early literacy exceeded the biological
or normative understanding of literacy as a product of individuals’ maturity and
chronological age, defined early literacy as behaviour, knowledge and skills that
proceed reading and writing and support the development of academic literacy.
For example, children develop the ability to use language in everyday situations,
describe pictures, comprehend and tell a story, understand and use words, recognise sounds within words, link letters and sounds, draw and write symbols and
understand press in early childhood, but they are important predictors of academic
literacy in later life.
Within the developmental interpretation of literacy, toddlers’/children’s language and language competence plays an important role at the stage of emerging
literacy1. Toddlerhood is a crucial period for vocabulary development that, in terms
of its growth as well as the variety of words, progresses very rapidly (e.g. Bates &
Goodman 2001; Marjanovič Umek et al. 2017a). The findings of a Slovenian longitudinal study carried out on a sample of toddlers aged 16–30 months (who were
assessed in three-month intervals) showed that, at the age of 30 months, toddlers
used 600 words or more; within this age period, they acquired, on average, 30
1

B. Cutting (1989) defined early literacy as ‚whole language‘.

128

Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Marjanovič Umek
Hacin, Fekonja

words per month; and their first vocabularies included a larger proportion of open
words (e.g. nouns, verbs, adjectives), with closed words (e.g. suggestions, pronouns)
added later (Marjanovič Umek et al. 2016). According to Vigotski (1978, 2010),
children use symbols and mental tools to structure their thoughts. Contemporary
researchers (e.g. Hemphil & Snow 1996; Olson 1994) emphasised the relations
between metalinguistic awareness, or the ability to think about language at the
level of the symbolic system (i.e. understanding the concept of closed and open
words, syllables and sounds) and at the level of meta-communicative abilities (i.e.,
the ability to talk about things that are not present here and now, relationships
and mental states), and the development of early literacy. In the development of
early literacy, children’s ability to listen to the reading of texts is also important.
A child who developed metalinguistic and other metacognitive abilities is able to
understand and interpret mediated texts to a different extent than a child who does
not yet possess metacognitive and metalinguistic abilities. He is able to understand
the thoughts and perspectives of other people, cognitive and language transformations, the roles played by heroes and the sequences of events. Both vocabulary and
metalinguistic ability also represent the basis for toddlers’/children’s pragmatic
language competence, namely, storytelling. The stories told by children aged four
and five years typically involve interpretation of events, both real and imaginative,
from the child’s and other people’s perspectives; descriptions of time and place;
heroic characteristics; dialogue and a narrative arc that creates the structure of a
story (Bruner 1986; Engel 2016; Pratt & Fiese 2004).
Graphomotor skills, which are children’s ability to copy shapes and signs within
a limited surface, track and draw lines of different shape, orientation and proportionality and draw, play a key role in the development of early literacy. Drawing is
a symbolic presentation in which the child represents, for example, that the wheels,
which are represented as circles, are the key elements of a car by drawing a car as a
group of circles. At the level of early literacy, a child distinguishes between drawing
and writing, drawing on a limited surface and writing by representing several signs
(which are not necessarily recognised as letters) in a sequence from left to right
direction while repeatedly raising the pen (Karmiloff & Karmiloff- Smith 2001;
Kress 1996; Roskos & Christie 2007).
The role of adults in supporting children’s early literacy
Adults can support the development of children’s early literacy in different
ways and during various activities. Activities such as conversations, storytelling
and shared reading, teaching songs and rhymes, visiting the library, teaching letters
and numbers, reading and writing and encouraging symbolic play and drawing are
key factors in the development of early literacy of toddlers and children in early
childhood (e.g. McCoy & Cole 2011; Lonigan 2004; Marjanovič Umek et al. 2005).
Among the activities that are particularly important for supporting toddlers’
and children’s language and early literacy, several authors (e.g. Debaryshe 1993;
Vander Woude & Barton 2003; Wasik & Bonn 2001) emphasise interactive shared
reading of children’s books and symbolic play. Researchers (e.g. Dixon-Krauss et

Children›s
early literacy: The effect of preschool and family factors


129

al. 2010; Wasik & Bond 2001) argue that, during high-quality shared reading, the
adult constantly determines the child’s understanding of the text, answers questions, encourages conversation about the text and encourages the child to continue
the story, describe illustrations and interpret the hero’s thoughts and emotions.
Interactive shared reading of children’s books provides a lot of opportunities for
children to learn new words. Additionally, the language used by adults in conversations with their children during shared reading is more complex compared to
other daily activities (Fletcher & Reese 2005). The age at which adults began to
read to a child and the frequency of shared reading have a positive effect on child’s
vocabulary, language competence, reading comprehension and phonological awareness (Debaryshe 1993; Sénéchal et al. 1998). Similarly, symbolic play is a complex
activity in which children’s cognitive, language and metacognitive abilities are
intertwined. Children’s pretending in symbolic play (e.g. creation of symbolic cognitive and language presentations that take on different roles or create imaginary
situations) is a reciprocal relationship, since language as a symbolic system supports
the development of symbolic play at a higher level of development and vice versa
(Pellegrini & Galda 1998; Smilansky & Shefatya 1990; Vigotski 1967). Encouragement of children’s symbolic play by a more competent individual who supports
the children within the zone of proximal development thus creates opportunities
for development of language, metalinguistic awareness and, consequently, early
literacy (e.g. Doyla 2010; Hakkarainen & Bredikyte 2008).
It is especially important for children enrolled in preschool to be included in
different activities that promote early literacy within the preschool curriculum
(Browne 1996; Harris 1993, NICHD 2000). The quality of preschool teachers’
implementation of the preschool curriculum, that is, the implementation of planned
activities as well as the hidden curriculum, largely depends on their understanding
of the importance of different activities such as group discussion, storytelling, use
of language to describe cognitive problems and social relations (Browne 1996). The
findings of a Slovenian study show that additional planned preschool activities
concerning shared reading had a positive effect on general language competence
and the storytelling of children aged four to five years (Marjanovič Umek et al.
2003). In the Slovenian preschool curriculum (1999), early literacy is not stated
as an area of activities, and the goals and examples of activities from this area are
not specifically recognised.
Researchers (e.g. Dearing et al. 2009; Geoffroy et al., 2010; Marjanovič Umek
& Fekonja 2006) argue that high-quality preschool is a protective factor affecting
the development and learning of children, including the development of language
and early literacy, especially for children from socially and culturally less supportive
environments who are enrolled in preschool at an early age.
The importance of a symbolically rich environment for children’s development of
early literacy
Social, economic and cultural factors related to the family environment significantly affect the language development of toddlers and children in early childhood

130

Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Marjanovič Umek
Hacin, Fekonja

(e.g. Burgess et al. 2002, McKean et al. 2015). One of the most frequently studied
family factors is parental education. Research (Marjanovič Umek et al. 2017a)
shows that parental education has a significant effect on children’s language ability,
particularly children’s storytelling. Children with highly educated parents typically
tell stories with a greater number of words and a more complex structure compared
to children whose parents have a lower level of education (e.g. Marjanovič Umek et
al. 2012). The effect of parental education on children’s language and early literacy
is mediated by parents’ knowledge of their children’s development (Rowe et al.
2016). Moreover, parental education affects parents’ implicit theories about their
children’s development and learning and, consequently, parental behaviour during
symbolic play with a child (Marjanovič Umek & Fekonja Peklaj 2017).
In addition to parental education, several other family factors, especially a
symbolically rich environment, play an important role in children’s language and
early literacy development. Research (e.g. Burgess et al. 2002; Manolitsis et al.
2011) shows that exposure to a number of books, especially children’s books, has
a significant effect on children’s language. Furthermore, the number of children’s
books at home is an important predictor of children’s language in early childhood
(McKean et al. 2015) and is significantly related to children’s emerging literacy
(Manolitsis et al. 2011). In addition, the number of books, including children’s
books, at home and children’s age at the onset of shared reading significantly affect the quality of shared reading between mothers and their children, which is, in
turn, related to the coherence of children’s stories (Marjanovič Umek et al. 2017b).
The main aim of our research was to examine the effect of additional activities carried out by preschool professionals in two preschool classes to achieve goals
related to early literacy on children’s achievements in several areas of emerging
literacy. In this regard, we analysed children’s achievements, particularly in relation
to parental education, children’s age at entry into preschool and factors related to
the family’s cultural capital.
Method
We used a quasi-experimental method with quantitative data analysis.
Sample
The sample included two preschool classes in which children were enrolled in
the year before entering primary school. The first class included 24 children, and the
second included 25 children. Parental consent was obtained for all the children, but
the final sample only included children with normative development (we excluded
three children who received additional professional help due to special needs). The
final sample thus included 46 children (24 children from the first preschool class
and 22 children from the second), 22 girls (47.8 %) and 24 boys (52.2 %), aged 5.1
to 6 years (M = 5.7, SD = .3).

Children›s
early literacy: The effect of preschool and family factors


131

Parents had various levels of formal education. In total, 11 parents (23.9 %)
had completed secondary vocational education or less and 35 parents (76.1 %) had
at least general secondary education.
Two pairs of preschool teachers and preschool teachers’ assistants participated
in the study. The preschool teachers finished a higher education preschool education programme, and the preschool teachers’ assistants finished secondary school
for preschool teachers. The preschool teachers had 20 and 24 years of professional
work experience, while the preschool teacher’s assistants had 3 and 11 years of
experience.
Materials
The following materials were used to assess different areas of children’s early
literacy.
Children’s metalinguistic awareness was assessed with the metalinguistic
awareness scale (MAS), one of the three scales included in the Scales of General
Language Development – LJ (Marjanovič Umek et al. 2004). It consists of 35 tasks
used, for example, to assess the ability to recognise the first and last sound in a
word, correct grammatical errors and distinguish between long and short words
in children aged five to six years. The highest possible score is 35. The Cronbach
alpha reliability coefficient is .90, calculated with a sample of 78 children aged six
years (ibid.).
The Little Glove Storytelling Test (LGST, Marjanovič Umek et al. 2012) was
used to assess children’s storytelling. The test is designed to measure the spontaneous storytelling of children aged three to six years, and it takes the a form of a
picture book without text. It includes 11 illustrations presenting a folk story about
a lost glove. The final score is a sum of 11 partial scores on the following measures
(converted to centile values): tokens (all words), types (different words), mean
length of utterances, coordinate clauses, subordinate clauses, simple sentences,
coordinating conjunctions, subordinating conjunctions, events, narrative perspective and characters’ mental state. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient is .88,
calculated with a sample of 64 children aged five years.
Children’s graphomotor skills were assessed with the Graphomotor Skills
Test (GST), which included four tasks, of which two are included in the Test for
First Grade Pupils (Toličič & Skerget 1966) and the other two are included in
the School Readiness Test (Toličič 1986). The tasks are used to assess children’s
ability to copy individual signs, a set of consequent signs and more complex patterns within a limited surface. The proportionality, shape and size of the copied
signs, appropriateness of angles and visual-motor coordination are assessed. The
maximum score is 26. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient is .75, calculated
with a sample of the children included in this study.
Preschool teachers assessed children’s early literacy using the Early Literacy
Scale for Preschool Teachers (ELSPT, Marjanovič Umek et al. 2017c). The scale
includes 15 items referring to various aspects of children’s early literacy (for example, ‘He/she is interested in reading and related activities’, ‘He/she remembers

132

Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Marjanovič Umek
Hacin, Fekonja

the details from the stories’, ‘He/she draws on a limited surface using different
pens’). The preschool teacher assesses how often an individual child expresses
the described behaviour during various preschool activities using a scale from
1 (never) to 5 (very often/always). Each child is assessed separately, and children
are not compared to each other. The highest possible score on the scale is 75. The
Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient is .85, calculated with a sample of the children
included in this study.
Through the questionnaire for parents, which included six questions, we
obtained information about the children’s family environment, namely parental
education, the number of books (including children’s books) at home, the age at
which parents began to read to the child and the child’s age at entry into preschool.
Procedure
The study was designed longitudinally. Namely, we assessed children’s early
literacy twice: first during the month when additional professional education of
professional workers took place and second three months later, after participants
completed additional activities related to children’s early literacy. Specially trained
testers individually tested each child with the GST, MAS and LGST. In addition,
each of the preschool teachers assessed the early literacy of children included in
their classes using the ELSPT. At the time of the first assessment, parents filled
in the questionnaire for parents and returned it to their child’s preschool teacher
in a sealed envelope.
At the time of the first assessment of children’s early literacy, the professional
workers (preschool teachers and their assistants) received additional professional
education, which we designed for the purposes of the study. Within the professional
education, which involved lectures and discussions over a period of one month, we
provided professional workers with additional knowledge about the development
of language and early literacy as well as possible ways to promote different areas of
children’s emerging literacy. The lectures covered topics such as interactive shared
reading of preschool teachers and children, symbolic play and drawing, language
and children’s pre-reading and pre-writing skills. Particular emphasis was placed
on the importance of supporting children within the zone of proximal development
as well as the role of a more competent adult who, through their involvement in
various activities, enables children to develop cognitive, memory and language strategies to achieve higher levels of development than they themselves could achieve.
At the same time, various preschool curriculum activities (such as symbolic play,
routines, drawing, shared reading) were emphasised as contexts for the development of children’s early literacy. Examples of appropriate ways of involving adults
in children’s activities and scaffolding were illustrated. In addition, the preschool
teachers and their assistants were provided with additional professional literature
about these topics.
During the period of additional professional education and in the following three
months, professional workers from both preschool classes carried out additional
activities to support children’s early
​​
literacy within the everyday implementation of

133

Children›s
early literacy: The effect of preschool and family factors


curriculum. The activities included those that were planned (for example, interactive shared reading, storytelling, riddle solving, drawing, supporting graphomotor
skills) and routine (for example, clothing, having meals, resting). Above all, they
aimed to follow the basic principles of encouraging children’s development and
learning, as interpreted by sociocultural theories.
Professional workers kept notes about the implemented activities and ways of
providing children with support (for example, they described in detail the course of
an activity or conversation during a specific activity or collected children’s arts and
photographs). In addition, the researchers recorded several examples of activities
carried out in each of the preschool classes during two typical days in preschool
(two examples of additional activities are described in the Annex).
Results
Children’s achievements at the first assessment
First, we calculated the correlations between children’s achievements on all
tests used at the first assessment, differences between the achievements of girls and
boys and the correlations between children’s achievements and home environment
factors. All children were assessed with all tests, except for the LGST, in which one
girl did not participate.
GST

MAS

LGST

ELSPT

GST
MAS

.293*

LGST

-.052

.141

ELSPT

.143

.571*

.348*

Table 1. Correlations between children’s achievements on all tests used at the first assessment.
Note: * = p < .05; GST = Graphomotor Skills Test; MAS = Metalinguistic Awareness Scale; LGST =
Little Glove Storytelling Test; ELSPT = Early Literacy Scale for Preschool Teachers.

As can be seen in Table 1, there was a significant correlation between children’s achievements on GST and MAS. Additionally, children’s achievements on
ELSPT were significantly correlated with their achievements on MAS and LGST.
The results of the questionnaire for parents showed that children entered
preschool at an average age of 18 months (SD = 10.04 months). The average age
when parents started reading to their children (onset of shared reading) was 13.96
months (SD = 12.30 months). According to parents’ reports, they possessed, on
average, 100–200 books and 40–60 children’s books. We calculated the correlations
between children’s achievements on the used tests, home environment factors and
age at entry into preschool.

134

Marjanovič Umek
Hacin, Fekonja

Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Home environment factor

GST

MAS

LGST

ELSPT

Number of books

-.046

.178

.046

-.043

Number of children’s books

-.003

.239

.004

.129

.093

.024

-.118

.156

-.010

-.159

.132

-.065

Onset of shared reading
Age at entry into preschool

Table 2. Correlations between children’s achievements on the tests used at the first assessment (home
environment factors and child’s age at entry into preschool).

As can be seen in Table 2, home environment factors and children’s age at
entry into preschool were not significantly correlated with their achievements on
any of the tests. The highest correlations were found between children’s achievements on MAS and the number of all books and number of children’s books at home.
Next, we analysed the differences between girls’ and boys’ achievements using
a t-test. We found that there were no significant gender differences in achievements
on GST (t = .209, p = .836, d = .062), MAS (t = -1.180, p = .244, d = .348), LGST
(t = .197, p = .844, d = .059) or ELSPT (t = -1.204, p = .235, d = .358).
Using one-way ANOVA for unrepeated measures, we calculated the effects of
parents’ education and age at entry into preschool on children’s achievements. First,
we divided children into two groups depending on their age at entry into preschool.
The first group included children who entered preschool when they were less than
two years old, while the second group included children who entered preschool
when they were at least two years old. The obtained results show that differences
in children’s achievements on GST were not significant for children’s age at entry
into preschool (F(1, 42) = .044, p = .834, ηp2 = .001), parents’ education (F(1, 42)
= 1.785, p = .189, ηp2 = .041) or the interaction between the two variables (F(1,
42) = .002, p = .963, ηp2 = .000). Similarly, the differences in children’s achievements on MAS were not significant for children’s age at entry into preschool (F(1,
42) = .143, p = .707, ηp2 = .003), parental education (F(1, 42) = .152, p = .699, ηp2
= .004) or the interaction between them (F(1, 42) = 3.879, p = .056, ηp2 = .085).
The differences between children’s achievements on the LGST were not significant
for children’s age at entry into preschool (F(1, 41) = .137, p = .714, ηp2 = .003)
or parents’ education (F(1, 41) = .644, p = .427, ηp2 = .015), but the interaction
between the two factors was significant (F(1, 41) = 6.416, p = .015, ηp2 = .135).
The differences between children’s achievements on ELSPT were not significant
for parents’ education (F(1,42) = .272, p = .605, ηp2 = .006), children’s age at entry
into preschool (F(1, 42) = .006), p = .938, ηp2 = .000) or the interaction between
the two (F(1, 42) = 3.421; p = .071, ηp2 = .075. To summarise, the results showed
that children’s age at entry into preschool, parents’ education and the interaction
between these two factors did not have significant effects on children’s achievements, except for the interaction between children’s age at entry into preschool
and parents’ education identified for the LGST. The children of parents with lower
levels of education achieved more if they attended preschool for a longer period of
time compared to those who attended preschool for a shorter period. Contrarily, the

Children›s
early literacy: The effect of preschool and family factors


135

children of parents with higher levels of education scored higher if they attended
preschool for a shorter period of time.
Comparison of children’s achievements between both rounds of assessment
Next, we examined the effects of implementation of additional activities concerning early literacy on children’s achievements. Using mixed-design ANOVA, we
analysed the differences in children’s achievements between the first and second
assessment.
Test

Time of assessment Preschool class M

GST
1. assessment

2. assessment
MAS
1. assessment

2. assessment
LGST
1. assessment

2. assessment
ELSPT
1. assessment

2. assessment

SD

ANOVA

1. class

5.71

4.93

2. class

8.86

5.29

df1 = 44; df2 = 1; df3 = 1; df4 = 1

all

6.84

5.34

F1 = 28.524; p1 = .000; ηp21= .393*

1. class

8.08

5.48

F2 = 6.755; p2 = .013; ηp22= .133*

2. class

12.36

5.05

F3 = 1.046; p3 = .312; ηp23= .023

all

9.55

5.94

1. class

11.21

5.24

2. class

10.57

3.79

df1 = 44; df2 = 1; df3 = 1; df4 = 1

all

10.64

4.56

F1 = 16.476; p1 = .000; ηp21= .272*

1. class

14.23

5.36

F2 = .940; p2 = .337; ηp22= .021

2. class

12.57

3.21

F3 = .681; p3 = .414; ηp23= .015

all

13.16

4.57

1. class

5.08

1.38

2. class

5.00

1.45

df1 = 43; df2 = 1; df3 = 1; df4 = 1

all

5.02

1.42

F1 = 11.145; p1 = .007; ηp21= .156*

1. class

5.88

1.94

F2 = .170; p2 = .682; ηp22= .004

2. class

5.55

1.6

F3 = .167; p3 = .732; ηp23= .003

all

5.71

1.73

1. class

66.75

5.19

2. class

68.23

4.00

df1 = 44; df2 = 1; df3 = 1; df4 = 1

all

67.02

5.18

F1 = 59.333; p1 = .000; ηp21= .574*

1. class

70.58

3.45

F2 = .377; p2 = .542; ηp22= .008

2. class

70.55

4.00

F3 = 3.599; p3 = .064; ηp23= .076

all

70.14

4.16

Table 3. Differences in children’s achievements between the first and second assessment.
Note: * = significant effect at the level of .05; df1 = degrees of freedom – error; df2 = degrees of freedom
– time of assessment; df3 = degrees of freedom – preschool class; df4= degrees of freedom – interaction;
F1 = test of differences between times of assessment; F2 = test of differences between both preschool
classes; F3 = effect of interaction between time of assessment and preschool class.

136

Marjanovič Umek
Hacin, Fekonja

Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

As can be seen in Table 3, significant differences in children’s achievements
between the first and second assessment were measured on all used tests. More
specifically, children’s achievements were significantly higher at the second assessment. However, there were no significant differences between the two preschool
classes. The only exception was GST, on which children from the second preschool
class scored significantly higher than children from the first preschool class. The
effect of the interaction between time of assessment and preschool class was not
significant for any of the tests used in this study. The obtained results thus show
that children from both preschool classes progressed similarly in all the assessed
areas of early literacy. The effects of implementation of additional activities concerning early literacy on children’s achievements between the first and the second
assessment are shown in Figure 1.
MAS

GST
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

15

1. class
2. class

5

1. assessment

2. assessment

0

LGST

1. assessment

2. assessment

ELSPT

6

72
70

5,5

68

5

66
64

4,5
4

Preschool class:

10

62
60
1. assessment

2. assessment

1. assessment

2. assessment

Figure 1. Effects of implementation of additional activities concerning early literacy on children’s
achievements on all tests for both preschool classes.

Furthermore, we were interested in the possible effect of implementation
of additional activities with regard to parental education. Using mixed-design
ANOVA, we estimated whether the children of parents with higher levels of
education progressed similarly during the implementation of additional activities
compared to the children of parents with lower levels of education. The differences
in children’s achievements on GST were not significant for parents’ education
(F(1, 44) = 1.326; p = .256; ηp2 = .029) or for the interaction between the time of

Children›s
early literacy: The effect of preschool and family factors


137

assessment and parents’ education (F(1, 44) = .698, p = .408, ηp2 = .016). Similarly,
parents’ education did not have a significant effect on the differences in children’s
achievements on MAS (F(1, 44) = .614, p = .437, ηp2= .014) or LGST (F(1, 43) = .836,
p = .366, ηp2= .019), and the effect of interaction between the time of assessment
and parents’ education was not significant for children’s achievements on MAS (F(1,
44) = 1.010, p = .320, ηp2= .022) or LGST (F(1, 43) = 1.497, p = .288, ηp2= .034).
Moreover, the differences in children’s achievements on ELSPT were not significant for parents’ education (F(1, 44) = .000, p = .992, ηp2= .000) or the effect of
interaction between the time of assessment and parents’ education (F(1, 44) = .073,
p = .788, ηp2 = .002). To sum up, we found that the children of parents with different
levels of education progressed similarly during the implementation of additional
activities between the first and the second assessment.
Discussion
The main goal of our study was to establish the effect of additional activities
implemented by preschool professionals in two preschool classes in order to encourage early literacy of children aged five to six years.
The obtained results showed that different areas of early literacy, which we
assessed with standardised tests and preschool teachers’ assessments, were related,
thus indicating that the early literacy in early childhood is a holistic ability that
includes various aspects of language competence, such as metalinguistic awareness and storytelling as well as graphomotor, pre-reading and pre-writing skills.
According to several authors (e.g. Clay 1975; Karmiloff & Karmiloff-Smith 2001;
Marjanovič Umek 2013), early literacy is a comprehensive ability involving a variety of knowledge and skills, especially metalinguistic awareness (e.g. Olson 1994;
Hemphil & Snow 1996).
Although the findings of several studies (e.g. Manolitsis et al., 2011, Marjanovič
Umek et al. 2015, Rowe et al. 2016) suggest that family factors have a significant
effect on various aspects of early literacy, especially children’s language ability, the
obtained results do not confirm the relation between parental education, number
of books and children’s books at home, the age at which parents began to read to
the child, and children’s early literacy. One possible reason for the insignificant
correlations between children’s achievements and family environment factors is
that a large proportion of children in our sample had highly educated parents and
consequently a relatively supportive family environment. On average, parents stated
that they owned 100–200 books and 40–60 children’s books in their homes and that
they began to read to their children when they were, on average, 13 months old. To
obtain a more detailed assessment of family literacy factors, it would be necessary
to gain information about the quality of encouragements provided by parents for
their children, for example by observing language interactions between a parent
and a child during shared reading or symbolic play.
Moreover, children’s age at entry into preschool was not found to be related to
any of the early literacy measures, indicating that children who entered preschool

138

Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Marjanovič Umek
Hacin, Fekonja

at different ages (between 12 and 48 months of age, an average of 18 months),
achieved comparable early literacy scores between the ages of five and six. The
findings of several studies (e.g. Dearing et al. 2009; Geoffroy et al. 2010) suggest
that a high-quality preschool is a supportive factor affecting children’s language
and early literacy development, but mainly for children from socially and culturally
less supportive family environments. The findings of our study also showed that
the age at which children entered preschool had a different effect on storytelling
than parents’ level of education. Namely, children whose parents had a lower level
of education and were enrolled in preschool for a longer period of time told developmentally more complex stories compared to children who entered preschool at
a later age. The findings suggest that preschool has a compensatory role in the
language competence of children with less educated parents, in line with the results reported by several other authors (e.g. Marjanovič Umek & Fekonja 2006).
Furthermore, we found that a longer period of enrolment in preschool did not have
a positive effect on the storytelling of children with highly educated parents. In
fact, children of highly educated parents who entered preschool at a later age told
developmentally more complex stories compared to those who attended preschool
for a longer period of time. Considering this, we could conclude that, within preschool activities, there are several opportunities to encourage the storytelling of
children with highly supportive home environments, who typically express higher
language competence compared to children of less educated parents (e.g. Burgess
et al. 2002; Marjanovič Umek et al. 2017).
In the present study, we educated professional workers to implement additional activities that, within the framework of preschool curriculum, encourage the
development of children’s early literacy. The findings show that, during a threemonth period of planned additional encouragement, children from both classes
made significant progress in all the assessed aspects of early literacy: children told
stories at higher developmental levels, expressed more developed graphomotor
skills and achieved higher metalinguistic awareness, and their early literacy was
graded higher by the preschool teachers. The two preschool classes did not differ in
various aspects of early literacy, except graphomotor skills; however, the variability
in graphomotor skills was also relatively high in the whole sample of children.
Comparison between the first and second assessment showed that children from
both preschool classes progressed similarly in all the assessed areas of early literacy.
Based on the notes made by preschool teachers as well as records of preschool activities, the professional workers encouraged children’s early literacy in different
ways during planned activities (e.g. shared reading, symbolic play, visiting library,
drawing) and routine activities (e.g. dressing, having meals, cleaning up, resting).
Special attention was paid to adults’ inclusion in the implemented activities in
order to scaffold children’s development and learning (examples of scaffolding are
described in the Annex). Although early literacy develops rapidly in early childhood
(e.g. Applebee 1978; Baldock 2006) and the differences in children’s achievements
between the first and second assessments may be partly attributed to developmental effects. We assume that the time period between the two assessments was
rather short for identifying progress in children’s achievements solely based on

Children›s
early literacy: The effect of preschool and family factors


139

developmental changes. In our opinion, the findings described above suggest that
preschool workers can contribute to the development of early literacy in children
aged five to six years through planned, appropriate encouragement based on knowledge about and approaches to support children’s development. Similarly, Browne
(1996) argues that the quality of preschool teachers’ work largely depends on their
understanding of the importance of individual activities for children’s development
and learning. Since early literacy is not currently defined as an independent area
within Slovenian preschools and thus early literacy activities are not specifically
defined, it seems that early literacy should be more precisely conceptualised and
appropriate methods of implementation should be developed as it is an important
predictor of later reading literacy and academic success (e.g. Olson 1994; Karmiloff
& Karmiloff-Smith 2001; Marjanovič Umek 2013).
In our opinion, the research findings contribute to improvements in the
quality of preschool education, especially regarding early literacy. In this respect,
we emphasise the importance of professional workers’ knowledge about preschool
children’s development and learning as well as ways of encouraging children within
the zone of proximal development during different curriculum activities.
The study has certain limitations that must be taken into account when interpreting its findings. The first limitation is the relatively small sample of children
and professional workers, which prevents the findings from being generalised. The
small sample of children might have also affected the low and insignificant correlation between the investigated variables. The second limitation is the relatively
high level of parental education; the study did not include children with extremely
disadvantaged family environments, for whom preschool could have an even more
important compensatory effect. The third limitation concerns the longitudinal
monitoring of children’s progress over a given period of time; it is difficult to distinguish between the effect of encouragement on children’s achievements and the
effect of developmental changes related to the age interval between the first and
second assessments. However, we emphasise that developmental changes are also
affected by environmental factors and appropriate encouragement.
References
Applebee, A. (1978). The child’s concept of story: Ages two to seventeen. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Baldock, P. (2006). The place of narrative in the early years curriculum: How the tale unfolds.
London: Routledge.
Bates, E. and Goodman, J. C. (2001). On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon:
Evidence from acquisition. In M. Tomasello in E. Bates (eds.). Language development.
The essential readings. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., pp. 134–162.
Browne, A. (1996). Developing language and literacy 3-8. London: P. C. P.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burgess, S. R., Hecht, S. A. and Lonigan, C. J. (2002). Relations of the home literacy environment (HLE) to the development of reading-related abilities: A one-year longitudinal
study. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, issue 4, pp. 408–426.

140

Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Marjanovič Umek
Hacin, Fekonja

Carrington, V. and Luke, A. (2003). Reading, homes and families: From postmodern to modern? In A. Van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl and E. B. Bauer (eds.). On reading books to children:
Parents and teachers. Mahwah, NY: Erlbaum, pp. 231–252.
Clay, M, (1996). Accommodating diversity in early literacy learning. In D. R. Olson and
N. Torrance (eds.). The handbook of education and human development. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell Publisher Inc., pp. 202–224.
Cutting, B. (1989). Getting started in whole language. Bothell, WA: The Wright Group.
Dearing, E., McCartney, K. and Taylor, B. (2009). Does higher quality early child care promote low-income children’s math and reading achievement in middle childhood? Child
Development, 80, issue 5, pp. 1329−1349.
Debaryshe, B. (1993). Joint picture-book reading correlates of early oral language skill.
Journal of Child Language, 20, issue 2, pp. 455–461.
Dixon-Krauss, L., Januszka, C. M. and Chae, C. H. (2010). Development of the Dialogic
Reading Inventory of Parent-Child Book Reading. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 24, issue 3, pp. 266–277.
Doyla, G. (2010). Vygotsky in action in the early years. London: Routledge.
Engel, S. (2016). Storytelling in the first three years. Zero to three Journal, 1, pp. 2–6.
Fletcher, K. L. and Reese, E. (2005). Picture book reading with young children: A conceptual
framework. Developmental Review, 25, pp. 64–103.
Geoffroy, M.-C., Côte, S. M., Gigu`ere, C.-É., Dionne, G., Zelazo, P. D., Tremblay, R. E., Boivin,
M. and Séguin, J. R. (2010). Closing the gap in academic readiness and achievement:
The role of early childcare. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, issue 12,
pp. 1359−1367.
Gillen, J. and Hall, N. (2003). The emergence of early childhood literacy. In N. Hall, J. Larson
and J. Marsh (eds.). Handbook of early childhood literacy. London, Thousand Oaks,
New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 3–12.
Hakkarainen, P. and Bredikyte, M. (2008). The zone of proximal development in play and
learning. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 4, pp. 2–11.
Harris, J. (1993). Early language development. London, New York: Routledge.
Hemphill, L. and Snow, C. (1996). Language and literacy developmental: Discontinuities
and differences. In D. R. Olson and N. Torrance (eds.). The handbook of education and
human development. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publisher Inc, pp. 173–201.
Karmiloff, K. and Karmiloff–Smith, A. (2001). Pathways to language: From fetus to adolescent.
United States of America: President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Kress, G. (1996). Writing and learning to write. In D. R. Olson in N. Torrance (eds.). The
handbook of education and human development. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publisher
Inc, pp. 225–257.
Kurikulum za vrtce [Preschool Curriculum]. (1999). Ljubljana: Zavod RS za šolstvo.
Langford, P. E. (2005). Vygotsky’s developmental and educational psychology. Hove, New
York: Psychological Press.
Lonigan, C. J. (2004). Emergent literacy skills and familly literacy. In B. H. Wasik (eds.),
Handbook of family literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 57–81.
Manolitsis, G., Georgiou, G. K. and Parrila, R. (2011). Revisiting the home literacy model
of reading development in an orthographically consistent language. Learning and
Instruction, 21, pp. 496–505.

Children›s
early literacy: The effect of preschool and family factors


141

Marjanovič Umek, L. (2013). Mišljenje in govor kot napovednika bralne pismenosti in znanja
otrok: socialna in kulturna perspektiva [Thinking and language as predictors of children’s literacy and knowledge: A social and cultural perspective]. In F. Nolimal and
T. Novaković (eds.), Bralna pismenost v vrtcu in šoli. Teoretska izhodišča in empirične
ugotovitve [Literacy in preschool and school: Theoretical issue and empirical findings].
Ljubljana: Zavod RS za šolstvo, pp. 49–62.
Marjanovič Umek, L., Božin, N., Čermak Hauko, N., Štiglic Hribernik, N., Bajc, S. and
Fekonja Peklaj, U. (2016). Zgodnji govorni razvoj: Primerjava besednjaka slovenskih
malčkov in malčic [Early language development: Vocabulary comparison of Slovenian
boys and girls]. Sodobna pedagogika, 67, issue 1, pp. 12–37.
Marjanovič Umek, L. and Fekonja, U. (2006). Učinek vrtca na otrokov govorni razvoj: slovenska vzdolžna študija [The effect of preschool on children’s language development].
Sodobna pedagogika, 57, issue 5, pp. 44–64.
Marjanovič Umek, L. and Fekonja Peklaj, U. (2017). The roles of child gender and parental
knowledge of child development in parent child interactive play. Sex Roles, 77, issue
7–8, pp. 496–509.
Marjanovič Umek, L., Fekonja, U., Kranjc, S. and Lešnik Musek, P. (2003). The impact of
reading children’s literature on language development in the preschool child. European
Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 11, issue 1, pp. 125–135.
Marjanovič Umek, L., Fekonja Peklaj, U. and Podlesek, A. (2012). Parental influence on the
development of children’s storytelling. European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal, 20, issue 3, pp. 351–370.
Marjanovič Umek, L., Fekonja, U., Podlesek, A., Kranjc, S. and Bajc, K. (2007). Lestvice
splošnega govornega razvoja – LJ (LSGR – LJ). Priročnik [Scales of general language
development – LJ. Manual]. Ljubljana: Center za psihodiagnostična sredstva.
Marjanovič Umek, L., Fekonja Peklaj, U. and Sočan, G. (2017a). Early vocabulary, parental
education, and the frequency of shared reading as predictors of toddler’s vocabulary
and grammar at age 2;7: A Slovenian longitudinal CDI study. Journal of Child Language, 44, issue 2, pp. 457–479.
Marjanovič Umek, L., Fekonja Peklaj, U., Sočan, G. and Komidar, L. (2011). Pripovedovanje
zgodbe. Preizkus pripovedovanja zgodbe: Rokavička. Preizkus pripovedovanja zgodbe:
Žabji kralj [Storytelling. Storytelling test: The Little glove. Storytelling test: The Frog
king]. Ljubljana: Center za psihodiagnostična sredstva.
Marjanovič Umek, L., Hacin, K. and Fekonja, U. (2017b). The quality of mother–child shared
reading: Its relations to child’s storytelling and home literacy environment. Early Child
Development and Care, DOI: 10.1080/03004430.2017.1369975.
Marjanovič Umek, L., Hacin, K. and Fekonja, U. (2017c). Lestvica za ocenjevanje zgodnje
pismenosti otrok za strokovne delavce v vrtcu. Neobjavljeno gradivo [Early Literacy
Scale for Preschool Teachers. Unpublished material].
Marjanovič Umek, L., Podlesek, A. and Fekonja, U. (2005). Assessing home literacy environment: Relations to the child’s language comprehension and expression. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, issue 4, pp. 271–281.
McCoy, E. and Cole, J. (2011). A snapshot of local support for literacy: 2010 survey. London:
National Literacy Trust.
McKean, C., Mensah, F. K., Eadie, P., Bavin, E. L., Bretherton, L., Cini, E. and Reilly, S. (2015).
Levers for Language Growth: Characteristics and Predictors of Language Trajectories
between 4 and 7 Years. PLoS ONE, 10, issue 8, pp. 1–21.

142

Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Marjanovič Umek
Hacin, Fekonja

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2000). The relation of child care to cognitive
and language development. Child Development, 71, pp. 960–980.
Olson, D. (1994). The world on paper. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pellegrini, A. and Galda, L. (1998). The development of school-based literacy. A social ecological perspective. London: Routledge.
Pratt, M. W. and Fiese, B. H. (2004). Family stories and the life course. Mahwah, New Jersey,
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Roskos, K. A. and Christie, J. E. (eds.). (2007). Play and literacy in early childhood. United
States of America: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.
Rowe, M. L., Denmark, N., Jones Harden, B. and Stapleton, L. M. (2016). The role of parent
education and parenting knowledge in children’s language and literacy skills among
white, black and Latino families. Infant and Child development, 25, pp. 198–220.
Sénéchal, M., LeFevre, J., Thomas, E. and Daley, K. (1998). Differential effects of home literacy experiences on the development of oral and written language. Reading Research
Quarterly, 32, pp. 96–116.
Smilansky, S. and Shefatya, L. (1990). Facilitating play: A medium for promoting cognitive,
socio-emotional and academic development in young children. Gaithersburg: Psychosocial and Educational Publications.
Toličič, I. (1986). POŠ. Preizkus pripravljenosti otrok za šolo: Priročnik [POŠ. Test of Children’s Readiness for School: Manual]. Ljubljana: Zavod SR Slovenije za produktivnost
dela, Center za psihodiagnostična sredstva.
Toličič, I. and Skerget, M. (1966). Ugotavljanje zrelosti otrok za vstop v šolo: Raziskava in
poročilo [Determining Children’s Maturity for School Entry: Research and Report].
Ljubljana: Zavod SRS za zdravstveno varstvo v Ljubljani.
Vander Woude, J. and Barton, E. (2003). Interactional sequences in shared book-reading
between parents and children with histories of language delay. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3, issue 3, pp. 223−247.
Vigotski, L. S. (1978/2010). Mišljenje in govor [Thought and Language]. Ljubljana: Pedagoška
fakulteta.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet
Psychology, 5, pp. 6–18.
Wasik, B. A. and Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading
and language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, issue 2, pp. 243–250.

Children›s
early literacy: The effect of preschool and family factors


143

Annex
Examples of promoting early literacy
Interactive shared reading
The preschool teacher read a book by Svetlana Makarovič, Šuško and the Forest
Day, to the children again. There were six children sitting in a circle around the
table. The preschool teacher held the book in a way that enabled all the children to
follow the text and illustrations. The teacher and two children had a conversation
during the shared reading:
Preschool teacher (reading from the book): ‘“Are you not Sapramiška? I remember you from a book and a puppet show – it is you, right?” said Šuško. “Of
course I am,” Sapramiška shouted, “I suppose so. Stand up, you lazy, and come
with me. I need help. Not only me, all the forest animals are in need.”’
Preschool teacher: ‘What do you think happened to the forest animals that
they are in need?’
Girl: ‘One dwarf did something’.
Boy: ‘Everyone was fighting’.
Girl: ‘Everyone was fighting because a dwarf did something’.
Preschool teacher: ‘What do you think he did?’
Girl: ‘I do not know. Maybe he has blown up something and they are fighting
now’.
Preschool teacher: ‘Do you think that an argument happened? Well, let›s read
on and we shall what has happened’.
Girl: ‘No, I remember now. Maybe her house burned down’.
Preschool teacher: ‘Maybe ... You remembered a mouse who survived the
forest fire?’
Girl: ‘Yes!’
Preschool teacher: ‘But this mouse is a different one. Maybe they know each
other. I will read on’.
Metalanguage
The children go for a walk in the forest and tell a song about the spring:
Preschool teacher: ‘Children, do you remember what the word “vesna” means?’
Children: ‘Yes, spring’.
Preschool teacher: ‘That›s right. “Vesna” means spring. Now, we already
know two words for spring. I will tell you the third one: spring can also be called
“vigred”. Which of the three words do you prefer?’
The children say which word they prefer.
Preschool teacher: ‘Well, one word can also be used as something else. We can
use it as a name. Which one is it?’
Children: ‘Vesna’.

144

Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Marjanovič Umek
Hacin, Fekonja

Preschool teacher: ‘That is true. Is Vesna a name for girls or boys?’
Children: ‘For girls’.
Preschool teacher: ‘How do you know that?’
The children think.
Preschool teacher: ‘Let›s see what the names of girls in our group are’.
Children: ‘Maša, Zala, Lea, Živa, Julija ...’
Preschool teacher: ‘What do you hear in these names? What do they have in
common?’
Boy: ‘Letter A’.
Preschool teacher: ‘Yes, you are right. Explain to others where the letter A is’.
Boy: ‘The letter A is at the end of each name’.
Preschool teacher: ‘Yes, children, listen again [she emphasises the letter A]:
Maš-a, Lin-a, Julij-a, Vesn-a... Most women›s names end with the letter a’.